<Thaddeus> +present
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> regrets, roy, charles
<sgoto> hey all
<Thaddeus> same
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> introductions
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> zakim pick scribe
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe: Becka11y
<scribe> scribe: becka11y
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
Lisa: 3 modules - need more
mature version of explainer and need more mature drafts of
content and help & tools
... Becky was supposed to look at Help and Thaddeus at Content
- has that happened
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html
Becky: Needs more info and understanding before I can tackle this on my own
JF: sees a number of parts but
has concerns about how we are moving forward (although admits
that is new ot the group). Seems we are focusing on solutions
before we fully understand the semantics involved
... would like to focus on taxonomy first; concerned about
volume of attributes proposed, complexity and worried main
stream developers will struggle with that
Michael: agree about separating
taxonomy and how we apply to content; believe that we need to
focus on taxonomy for now. Sees Becky’s confusion about
overlapping values, etc; Proposes that folks don’t get wrapped
up in terms that are currently in the documents
... focus more on what the concept is and try to determine the
set of terms to accomplish that concept or goal
Michael; believe Lisa can give us the background to help us
<Thaddeus> Michaels input is helpful for me to move forward with tools
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.htm
Lisa: Help document is a very early draft
<sgoto> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html (other link 404s)
Lisa: goal is to enable people to
provide extra support and help to mostly people with cognitive
disabilities but may help others
... we have in this doc. 2 proposed implementations. 1 -
linking to something that provides more information - we need
to tag that as to what type that alternative content/ more
information is
... we might have alternative content that addresses more than
one type of issue: numberfree, non-literal, or other type of
extra help
... we can provide an entire page that is alternative content
that is easier - no numbers, simple language, etc
... could be metatdata or different sections of the page
... Need direct link to alternative or identified within the
dom - not as easy as alt text or putting alternative into
attribute value
... some simple ones can be aui attributes
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html#alternative-explanation
Lisa: gives an example of alternative supplied in the DOM
Becky: how does user access that alternative info?
<sgoto> is your expectation that the user agent is able to hide the other text?
Lisa: via personalization preferences
JF: so all of this information would be in the DOM - but can also be a link to an alternative; This brings up concerns based on all of the conversations and push back over long description in HTML5
Lisa: extended vocabulary can be
in a div, inline, complementary or other region; but want to
reference between one another
... we need to get the vocabulary completed - either at a page
level or a section
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html#numberfree-explanation
Lisa: easylang is really a
summary of the other cases but for other things (such as
numberfree) the substitutions are much easier perhaps as an
attribute
... this is simpler to implement but makes the spec appear more
complicated
... could be implemented as a popup by the user agent; User
makes the selection of what type of replacement they want
Michael: using easylang exampler
there are related use cases: this is the easylang version of x;
the easylang version of x can be found at y
... agree need to focus on vocabulary first
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> qa
JF: content when author provides
supplementatl or alt. content - for easylang author needs to
provide orig content and alternative
... also additional info can be provided within DOM
Lisa: we do have a simplified
example in the content module
... in current discussion author doesn’t just give more
information but provides an alternative content
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html#alternative-explanation
Lisa: propose next step: make a new draft starting off with the vocabulary of the different types - implementing via the DOM and via alternatives
<MichaelC> MC: I´m hearing we have at least 2 types of properties - ones that say ¨this is a X¨ and others that say ¨this is the X version of Y, or the Y version of X can be found at Z¨. They are ¨type¨ and ¨references¨ types of vocabulary terms. For the references ones, we know implementation will be a bit more complicated, but I hope can find a consistent way to do it. So let´s just put properties in the proper bucket and then refine
<MichaelC> them, and circle back on the ¨how should references type terms be implemented¨ question.
Lisa: include how to implement via large sections of text; also include via shortcuts to implement via inline replacements the author can provide
<Thaddeus> yes
JF: yes working on vocabulary makes sense; we may want to coordinate with web platform group and possibly get more attributes defined but wants vocabulary solid first is key
Lisa: keep the current
implementation proposals but characterize some as shortcuts but
note that these may be removed - they are here for dicussion
only
... Include a note that some of these examples may be removed -
that way we don’t lose any current information
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> start with vocablery
Michael: not sure we need a note on each section since this is an editors draft
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> then implementing
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> then a section on proposed shortcuts
Michael: agrees on working Vocabulary and don’t want to distract from that
Lisa: put all of these shortcut examples into their own section
Michael: what is meant by shortcuts?
Lisa: these are the inline implementations - the ones that look like alt text
Michael: sounds like we are looking at attributes - lets call them that
Sam: Is there any doc that goes further with use cases and how User agents might use this metadata?
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Getting-started-with-personalization-semantics
<sgoto> that would be great, thanks
Sam: Michael mentioned microdata and RDFa - is there a document about how alternatives have been considered/analyzed
Lisa: would be interested to know
if link above is helpful?
... willing to provide an orientation call for people if
wanted
<JF> +1 to Michael
Michael: more use cases and implementation is somethine we should be doing in the explainer; then we don’t have to orient each person separately
<sgoto> anyone has the github issue handy with pros/cons of alternatives considereds?
<JF> +1 to Lisa
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: make a new wiki page for considerations
Lisa: agree is important to document considerations, common definitions, etc
<MichaelC> Does personalization semantics work as an ARIA module?
JF: some of use cases and research done as part of COGA task force should be resurfaced
<JF> act me
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: mickael make a new wiki page for considerations
<sgoto> that sounds awesome Michael
Michael: will take the action to create an page to document alternative proposals / implementations
<MichaelC> First Public Working Draft of Personalization Semantics
Michael: and document the
decisions we made (and discussed related to)
... don’t want to dive too deep into history since it exists in
minutes but focus on going forward
Lisa: Need to find someone to make this version of the doc separated into two sections
<Thaddeus> isnt that within the context of tools and help documents?
Becky: restructure document first or work on vocabulary first?
Lisa: section on use cases; section on vocabulary; section on implementations
<JF> +1 to a) Use Cases, b) Vocabulary, c) implementations
Becky: I can look at the vocabulary but need resources from COGA
<MichaelC> Placeholder page for metadata comparison
Thaddeous: can we do the same reorganizatin for the tools
<JF> trackbot, end meeting
<JF> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: clapierre, Thaddeus, Becka11y, JF, Roy_, MichaelC, sgoto, Sharon, present, LisaSeemanKestenbaum Present: clapierre Thaddeus Becka11y JF Roy_ MichaelC sgoto Sharon present LisaSeemanKestenbaum Found Scribe: Becka11y Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y Found Scribe: becka11y Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: make mickael WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]