16:18:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #personalization
16:18:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-personalization-irc
16:18:55 <lisa> rrsagent, make logs public
16:20:40 <lisa> agenda+ Introductions and why we are interested in the work
16:20:41 <lisa> agenda+ Supporting tools options (zakim, github, rssagent or github issues, googledocs, the wiki etc)
16:20:43 <lisa> agenda+ What the dosument could include  - (user needs, semantics etc) - see https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
16:20:44 <lisa> agenda+ The draft we have of semantics  see https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
16:20:46 <lisa> agenda+ Do we want it as a vocabulary? see https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
16:20:48 <lisa> agenda+ should we trim the specification?
16:30:37 <Roy> Roy has joined #personalization
16:42:04 <clapierre> clapierre has joined #personalization
16:49:48 <janina> janina has joined #personalization
17:00:17 <clapierre> present+
17:00:21 <janina> present+
17:00:24 <lisa> present+
17:01:04 <Roy> present+
17:01:53 <clapierre> scribe: clapierre
17:02:04 <lisa> zakim, next item
17:02:04 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Introductions and why we are interested in the work" taken up [from lisa]
17:03:33 <MichaelC> present+
17:03:46 <clapierre> Lisa: I co-chair the coga WG better a11y with cognative disabilities
17:05:29 <clapierre> Charles: Diagram Center/ Born Accessible at Benetech
17:06:03 <clapierre> Andy: I am a consultant, editor of user needs standard at SC35 on edge of becoming an ISO.
17:06:42 <lisa> regrets: gregg
17:06:55 <clapierre> … model like a architecture for user needs 120 descriptions.
17:07:30 <clapierre> … get user needs on the map, they are ICT based.  not all are content based.  not all suited for WCAG, but some are.
17:08:34 <jasonjgw> jasonjgw has joined #personalization
17:08:34 <clapierre> … International picture we have user needs which could be useful in personalization.  worked in many efforts.  editor 24751
17:08:41 <clapierre> … user needs in ISO.
17:09:00 <jasonjgw> present+
17:09:24 <clapierre> Janina chiar for looking at a11y concerns for any specification.
17:09:54 <clapierre> … within the W3C.  I am very interested in ARIA module should move fwd.
17:10:10 <clapierre> … Benetech and their projects, andy in their project, INDI UI
17:10:21 <clapierre> … CSS buy in as well.
17:10:40 <clapierre> … longterm work Personalization place in W3C spec where it makes sense.
17:10:53 <clapierre> Lisa: we are getting wide range of perspectives.
17:11:18 <clapierre> Jason: I work in many W3C groups, Janina, Lisa, Charles with Diagram Center.
17:12:54 <clapierre> … I work with Janina in Indi UI WG, amd what might be involved with for web applications, and TPAC last year media capabilities and extend to user needs and preferenes.  how can we disclose those needs to web apps security concerns. how to achive this without skyrocketing costs for QA and testing.
17:13:17 <clapierre> Roy: I am from China
17:13:45 <clapierre> … I joined this as staff contact for W3C.  I follow Micheal's work
17:13:57 <clapierre> … I hope I can help.
17:14:11 <lisa> zakim, next item
17:14:11 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Supporting tools options (zakim, github, rssagent or github issues, googledocs, the wiki etc)" taken up [from lisa]
17:14:26 <clapierre> Lisa: great starting points.
17:15:14 <clapierre> …, supporting tool options for this TF.  Issue pages, wiki, google docs? etc.
17:15:42 <clapierre> …. home page to have all our links.  Option is GitHub which is common for W3C.
17:16:00 <lisa> q?
17:16:04 <clapierre> … wiki for a scratchpad.  in COGA we used google dos.  any comments?
17:16:28 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #personalization
17:16:43 <clapierre> … any preferences, github / wiki?  Or GoogleDocs.
17:17:02 <clapierre> Janina: I am not comfortable with Google docs but that is just me.
17:17:15 <clapierre> Roy: I would rather not use Google Docs
17:17:26 <clapierre> s/Roy/Andy
17:17:28 <MichaelC_> q+
17:18:12 <clapierre> Michael: Note: GitHub plays a different role for us.  its a Revision control and formal deliverables.
17:18:37 <clapierre> … should ancillary edits be in this or some other place?
17:19:19 <clapierre> … What is useful for thinking through other types of edits?  it can be done in GitHub, but in another location if it has to be migrated over and over.
17:19:59 <clapierre> Lisa: are we happy with wiki?  its easy to edit make changes.  if we avoid tables it is easier.  for building ideas.
17:20:11 <MichaelC_> q+ to note their are two wiki options
17:20:14 <clapierre> Charles: I am fine with a wiki.
17:20:32 <clapierre> Janina, other than tables, but its not my fav.
17:20:40 <lisa> ack m
17:20:40 <Zakim> MichaelC_, you wanted to note their are two wiki options
17:21:30 <MichaelC_> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/_new
17:21:31 <MichaelC_> ack me
17:21:37 <clapierre> Michael: there are two wiki options, I haven't set up the W3C wiki.  the Github wiki can be used more freely.  might be  easier for others, and there are user friendly than W3C wiki.
17:21:48 <clapierre> Lisa: any objections?
17:22:38 <clapierre> Andy: I think its important to poll his preference.
17:23:08 <lisa> jason are you ok with wiki and google docs?
17:23:28 <clapierre> Charles: I think Jason could handle himself in either GoogleDocs / wiki… but wouldn't want to speak on his behalf.
17:23:32 <lisa> zakim, next item
17:23:32 <Zakim> agendum 3. "What the dosument could include  - (user needs, semantics etc) - see https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/" taken up [from lisa]
17:23:41 <clapierre> Lisa: Charles and I will take this offline
17:24:20 <clapierre> … The specification itself this is our first draft.
17:24:49 <clapierre> … There is some success criteria where this document could provide techniques.
17:25:15 <clapierre> … a use case for people to complete those success criterial from WCAG 2.1
17:25:31 <clapierre> … what would we like to do?  this has semantics, it does not define user needs.
17:25:53 <clapierre> … we have a proposal for User needs, it links to a document in section 4
17:26:24 <clapierre> … scope of work?  define user needs?  semantics?  what do we feel as a group we would like to include in the scope for personalization.
17:26:47 <jasonjgw> q+
17:27:59 <clapierre> Janina: I think top priority that the AIRA module, authored, we need this to move this fwd.  this make its the top prospect.
17:28:38 <clapierre> … pick what Benetech, DAISY, Andy and around the user needs / specification efforts and who in W3C, like CSS media queries.  those would be the top two things.
17:29:36 <clapierre> … this module is on an independent timeframe, but we want to bring this to a rec. we need to get this moved fwd.
17:30:03 <clapierre> Micheal: this is not yet tied to a specific release, and this could be a vocabulary and not a spec itself.
17:30:12 <clapierre> Janina, if its not AIRA what is the parent group
17:30:43 <clapierre> Micheal: current thinking that ARIA is still the main group, there might be a lightweight module supporting the vocabulary.
17:30:47 <MichaelC> ack ja
17:32:01 <clapierre> Jason: main priority to work out what the approach is to enable the web applications personalize able.  How implementers to get it right etc.  privacy concerns.
17:33:12 <clapierre> … W3C meeting idea media queries, or other technologies, provide mechanism individual needs and preferences and start experimenting what could be disclosed, from communities outside the W3C.
17:33:13 <lisa> im back
17:34:13 <janina> q?
17:35:25 <AndyHeath> AndyHeath has joined #personalization
17:35:31 <clapierre> Andy: I support what Jason said.
17:35:44 <janina> q+ to speak against starting on overall architecthural approach
17:35:54 <lisa> q+
17:36:08 <clapierre> … leaves a number of questions.  great way to go.  I want to do the wider pictures.
17:36:31 <clapierre> … there is a piece missing at a higher level, and I think we can do this and get it on the map.
17:36:47 <clapierre> Lisa: we do have an issue paper on this.
17:36:58 <lisa> https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/personalization-preferences.html
17:37:36 <clapierre> Lisa:  lets talk about 3 pieces.
17:37:42 <clapierre> … 1. semantics
17:37:51 <clapierre> … 2. Architecture
17:37:56 <clapierre> … 3. User needs
17:38:23 <clapierre> … and standardize.  Janina's first point semantics need to get out faster part of AIRA group 1st deliverable.
17:38:50 <clapierre> … the Architecture would be secondary piece, authoring best practices.
17:39:14 <clapierre> … then user needs will take us longer.  semantics need to go first because of WCAG
17:39:47 <clapierre> Janina:  I am opposed to start with an architectural approach.  this group is not a continuation of IndiUI.
17:40:32 <clapierre> … We got stuck, meanwhile the coga people started a ARIA module, its low hanging.  there are implementations it has the oppertunity to become a W3C rec.
17:40:49 <clapierre> … I think we need to be focused on getting that a W3C rec.
17:41:43 <clapierre> … I don't think we need to go to the architecture.  we need to look at User needs with Benetech, DAISY. etc.  that is where we should focus our attention.  the overall architecture will be very difficult to achieve.
17:41:54 <clapierre> … I think that is a distraction.
17:42:39 <clapierre> Lisa: I pospose : semantics, low hanging get this to CR.  then look at user needs section, and then we revisit if there is something we need to look at for architecture.
17:43:19 <clapierre> Janina: do we want to use Media Queries?  MQ is offered to us a year ago.  if that is useful then we should looik at user needs available and see if MQ will work for us.
17:43:23 <jasonjgw> q+
17:43:47 <clapierre> … at the time we thought that was a home run.  we should take advantage..
17:44:03 <clapierre> Lisa: look at semantics first.
17:44:04 <AndyHeath_> AndyHeath_ has joined #personalization
17:44:33 <clapierre> … there are a lot of resources of user needs and describing them.
17:45:10 <clapierre> Janina: I am not concerned on what we put up for our document, but what can we pick from these existing documents.
17:45:20 <lisa> …priority  1. semantics
17:45:22 <lisa> ....priority   2. user needs
17:45:23 <lisa> ....priority   3  user needs  do they map to  media queries what can we pick from where, do we need to look at  architectures
17:45:55 <clapierre> Jason: I agree with Janina and looking at MQ and other ways which are really closely related to our needs.
17:47:33 <lisa> 	…priority  1. semantics
17:47:35 <lisa> 	....priority   2. user needs : a,collect and b, allow to standardize in interoprable way  user needs  do they map to  media queries what can we pick from where,
17:47:37 <lisa> 	....priority   3   do we need to look at  architectures beyond what we have
17:48:13 <clapierre> Lisa: do we have consensus on these priorities?
17:49:17 <clapierre> +1
17:49:25 <lisa> andy +1
17:49:28 <lisa> +1
17:49:34 <lisa> q?
17:49:41 <lisa> ack j
17:49:46 <lisa> ack l
17:49:50 <lisa> ack j
17:49:50 <Zakim> janina, you wanted to speak against starting on overall architecthural approach
17:50:26 <MichaelC> q+
17:50:34 <lisa> media quieres is CSS, that is realy good news
17:50:45 <clapierre> Janina: IMPORTANT, MQ is a CSS specification.  success in CSS for this personalization.
17:50:46 <lisa> ack m
17:51:09 <clapierre> Michael: MQ could meet a lot of our needs, but not all.  we should not tie exclusively to MQ.
17:51:37 <AndyHeath> +1 for MQ as a starting point
17:51:43 <AndyHeath> q+
17:52:02 <lisa> …priority  1. semantics
17:52:04 <lisa> ....priority   1.2 . user needs : a,collect and b, allow to standardize in interoprable way  user needs  do they map to  media queries what can we pick from where,
17:52:05 <lisa> ....priority   2   do we need to look at  architectures beyond what we have
17:52:09 <clapierre> … Priorities: yes its a priority to bring Personalization semantics, but identifying User needs is usually the first step.  we need some parallel effort with understanding we will get User needs.
17:52:49 <clapierre> Janina: question, can we do that with reference to FC35.
17:53:32 <clapierre> Andy: Its going to be an international standard, its out for comment, trying to get a readable version for web.  but has 120 needs. with Guide 71.  principals/goals which these needs are under.
17:53:41 <MichaelC> q+
17:54:19 <lisa> q+
17:54:25 <clapierre> … I want to add that we need to write down those descriptions and mapping those and referencing, and not just SC35 stuff fairly highlevel view.
17:54:37 <lisa> ack a
17:55:12 <lisa> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/user-settings
17:55:14 <MichaelC> http://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/#inventory-user-needs
17:55:31 <lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/table.html
17:55:42 <clapierre> Michael: I agree with Andy / Janina, we need to reference user needs and the COGA gap analysis.  parallel in APA Framework accessible technologies, with user needs
17:55:59 <clapierre> … we can decide what user needs we are meeting.
17:56:14 <janina> q+
17:56:18 <clapierre> … lets not get bogged down in User Need.
17:56:21 <lisa> q?
17:56:23 <MichaelC> ack me
17:57:01 <clapierre> Lisa: COGA the gap analysis an what the spec maps to what user need.  that is our starting point but there are missing pieces.
17:57:32 <clapierre> … we were making these tables of User needs / semantics.  may not be complete but a starting point.
17:58:18 <clapierre> Janina: Charles to help us with developing this.  wiki for all these pointers in place.  if we are going to move something to a W3C spec.  but we need to explain what problem we are addressing.
17:58:41 <clapierre> Lisa: every item in this will map to a specific user needs.
17:58:55 <clapierre> ack lisa
17:58:59 <clapierre> ack Janina
17:59:04 <lisa> action: cahrles and lisa to set up a wiki page collect userneeds sources
17:59:14 <clapierre> s/cahrles/charles
18:00:20 <lisa> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
18:00:27 <clapierre> Lisa: the actions we haven't decided on yet, looking at we have already and what we need to cull or write it differently so it can be a vocabulary.  can everyone look at this and see if we should move it to a vocab.  and what should we remove if anything.
18:00:45 <clapierre> … so we can get this out as a rec quickly.
18:00:53 <lisa> changes to doc: include: culling, restuction i - in part a vocab
18:00:54 <clapierre> … can we restructure as a vocabulary.
18:01:11 <clapierre> … move this discussion on the list.
18:02:02 <clapierre> Micheal: we should move this to the mailing list.  we may want to schedule a recurring call but use the mailing list.
18:03:03 <clapierre> Lisa: I think we decided this was the best time.
18:03:43 <clapierre> … lets add next week on agenda on weekly / biweekly and addressing of the restructuring of the document.
18:04:25 <lisa> https://beta.doodle.com/poll/uw32kkyziiz2tiue
18:06:18 <clapierre> rrsagent, make logs public
18:06:30 <clapierre> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:06:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-personalization-minutes.html clapierre
18:08:34 <lisa> rrsagent, create minutes
18:08:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-personalization-minutes.html lisa
18:08:51 <lisa> zakim, please part
18:08:51 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been clapierre, janina, lisa, Roy, MichaelC, jasonjgw
18:08:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #personalization
18:08:59 <lisa> rrsagent, please part
18:08:59 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-personalization-actions.rdf :
18:08:59 <RRSAgent> ACTION: cahrles and lisa to set up a wiki page collect userneeds sources [1]
18:08:59 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/25-personalization-irc#T17-59-04