Publishing WG Affordances Task Force telco

26 Apr 2018


wolfgang, franco, Avneesh, josh, George, zheng_xu



<jasminemulliken> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BEiBAB-RU2FK2_3XZKUERfFi-nGwwFrMFvKe08e0-QQ/edit?

<jasminemulliken> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/labels/topic%3Aaffordances

Jasmine: We’re dealing with 13 affordances and we need to decide which of those we need to have in the draft, which ones we don’t want to deal with at this team (close in other words), or if any of them should be combined...

Part of our goal last time was to go through these and figure out which ones to close.

I am seeing one that has a proposed closing on it. Establish a timeline the next week, next Thursday where we actually do commit to closing some of these?

Tzviya: I think it would be a good use of time to start discussing this now and close some issues now.

<jasminemulliken> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/143

Avneesh: We also had a discussion of how to present a template.

Jasmine: Last time Zheng proposed coming up with a template. Let’s take a look at that (issue 143). We can determine whether these issues can fit in the template.
... Any thoughts on the template?

wolfgang: i would add that the title would be the short way to refer to an affordance. perhaps we should have one sentence per title just to describe what it means. There could be a misunderstanding of what it could mean. The reporter should put very succinctly what the feature means.

jasmine: if this template looks good, i think this is a good starting point to start drafting up some of these affordances. Let's go through a couple of them to see how that might work.
... one issue that has seen a lot of attention is search. Do we want to rephrase something like "WP affords search," "... affords going forward and backwards."

There is some debate whether search already exists in a browser. The search should cover the entire publication, rather than just a page in the publication.

wolfgang: search is difficult. Search could mean a string of characters or it could also be based on semantic markup in your html. perhaps we should try to define what kinds of search we use. Is it just search for some chunk of text or across the whole WP, or is it a search based on metadata, infoset, semantic markup. Just to make clear. Because if we say that the WP should afford search, we say "It affords text search and thats it"

george the fundamental point here is that it searches the publication. Whether the search is any of those categories, i think that goes beyond what we need to define here, but just that it can do a string search would be the minimum. If a UA wnats to go beyond that, that's great. Ranking them based on heading, body text, exact search, etc, all of those things are beyond the scope of what we are defining here. All we have to do is make sure that we can search [CUT]


avneesh: if we want to develop spec from it, we have to go into more depth, what it is exactly what we want.

jasmine: it might be worth it to just put in whether search is an affordance for the f2f.
... do we have a reference for a use case for this one?

<wolfgang> I suppose we all agree that any kind of search should treat the whole WP as a unit

<zheng_xu> present* Zheng

<zheng_xu> Thanks wolfgang zheng_xu === rakutenjeff

jasmine: we've filled out the template in this one example (search across WP). can we apply this to these other affordances in the list and maybe come up with a tentative draft by the f2f. We have to figure out what issues we want to take off the list...
... we have used zheng's template with ivan's modifications to address the search WP affordance as an example. Does any one have any suggestions for an issue to close?

wolfgang: i think we could close the time based media and text
... and the inclusion of data because this is just ordinary web affordances. you could include video, audio, any dataset, xml data in your html. I think this is not specific to WP. Not a very special affordance.

george?: i think youre right that video, audio, any of these common things on the web is no problem...

scribe: but when we talk about synchronized text and audio--that doesnt exist today
... it's a feature in epub3 with media overlays. there is a community group that Marisa (?) is running on the development of this affordance. But it is not trivial. Getting adoption in the web community...
... will be the big question mark here.
... we are getting at synching time based media with non time based media (text)

jasmine: george, do you want to maybe tackle those two for the draft?

<wolfgang> perhaps we should reformulate this issue to make it clear what George just explained to us

george: sure

jasmine: there might be another field or something else that needs to be addressed in the template with respect to this issue. We should share with the group additional fields to put into the template if we find the template lacking

george: where will the template live?

<wolfgang> +1 to make the template more prominent/accessible

jasmine: it should be in the issue 143 where it lives now, as long as that is easily accessible to everyone

avneesh: one thing to add: navigable audio books. i dont know whether this will fall under the same, or whether we have a separate use case for it

tzviya: i think its fine if we put it in a google doc, but since each issue is being discussed in github, i think lets keep them in the issue. for now lets keep them with the issue

jasmine: i think another advantage of that is we will have more input from a larger group. that way the conversation can still evolve if it's still in the issue.

Let's keep each tentative draft within the issue thread

scribe: add to reading publication list. this was also proposed as a close (not officially). If generating a reading list should be something that is outside of this group.

tzviya: its not part of the publication, but of the environment that contains the publication

jasmine: lets do a proposed close on it
... unless anyone objects, i will add that label to it (issue 153)

zheng: related to how much we want to define affordance, do we really want to define a bookshelf feature--- what is our standard for this feature?

jasmine: this is something that would be handled by the RS rather than the publication itself. it is a feature of the RS, if we put it into our spec, would it mean that the publication, would it have the ability to add itself to the RS?

zheng: if we want bookshelf in the UA< the UA might need to know, trust the web provider

as a reader i want to have a collection. so do we think it would be a good idea to provide a feature in the UA itself?

the idea is kind of a feature of UA, but i want to draw a line between the UA itself and the RS.

<George> /join waiccq+

jasmine: navigation issues. issues of table of contents, like 146. issue of moving forward and backward (144). filtered navigation reading experience. guided navigation. I know thats four different issues, but does anyone want to volunteer to tackle one of those ?

tzviya: 2 points: i think that we need to keep in mind the distinction of what is actually part of WP and what we 'd like to see UAs do. thats the argument that is happening with the bookshelf. everyone agrees that the collection concept is great.
... whether that belongs in this spec is the question. so those are the criteria we need to keep in mind
... 2. some of these issues are a great concern to the larger group. the nav in particular a lot of people have strong opinions about them. we can bring them up in the larger meeting. navigation is a hot topic, it might just be something that people in this group dont want to take up

jasmine: i will work on offlining

george: i have 134: synched media with text
... i will try to put together a draft today

jasmine: lets earch try to have one of those by next thursday.

once we have a few of these written out, it will seem less daunting to have them done

scribe: i think we have what we need to just start doing some work. if we need to do a check in once more before the f2f, maybe mid-may, we can try to do that. lets see what we can produce in that time

<jasminemulliken> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/143

scribe: the template is in 143.

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/143#issuecomment-374888961

tzviya: moving forward and backward might be combinable with navigation and reading experience.

jasmine: i think there are a few nav ones that can be combined.

george: guided navigation. or should we leave the navigation topic out to be combined ?

jasmine: go ahead
... #4 provide an example is more along the lines of linking out to where something already exists.
... personalization: i think avneesh you participated in that thread. WP affords personalization

avneesh: its a very big topic.

jasmine: maybe we should leave that one for now.

avneesh: do we need to have affordances for it?
... maybe we should ask tzviya about it

jasmine: if anyone wants to claim anything, just go ahead and do it. thank you all. we will try to meet again in two weeks.

<jasminemulliken> George 134; Jasmine 141; Zheng 146; Dave? 144/140; Wolgang 139

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/04/27 04:57:27 $