<scribe> scribe: becka11y

Results from survey questions

active - 1 person is ready to go; Charles and Becky feel we need a definition

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit#heading=h.gmpmiu9yrnze

<JF> +1 to Becky

easylang - becky feels we need a better definition; A quick proposal: Uses sentences with fewer than XX words and uses only word of 3(?) syllables or less.

LS: there is a section on making content using clear and understandable via simple text - is hard to put that into spec. and def. due to internationalization/ language dependencies; Suggest refering to COGA documents
... this is an early draft; we can suggest using def of clear and understandable content from COGA task force; add editors note to add the link to that def.

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask whether we really want a more generalized alternative presentation mechanism, one of whose uses is simplified language?

JS: is it our req. to support simplified definition? does just providing an alternative version that use can request via preferences solve the issue
... so isn’t our job to define - there are other groups to do that

LS: disagree - we need to develop the pers. vocabulary;

+1

<JF> alternative="true" type="easylang"

LS: we need different terms for different use cases - some people want more than others
... we may have too many but we have to determine the vocabulary; need vocabulary and the mechanism/implementation - but need vocabulary first
... chunk - is a term of art for people who make content for people with cognitive disabilities

JS: but that term may not be understood by others

<Thaddeus> i did that actually

LS: that is why we need a definition

<Thaddeus> i put in the survey that I wasnt familiar with the term chunk

JF: provided a possible implementation above - indicate there is an alternative, then identify the type

LS: the actual alternative would indicate its type

JS: we need to define what easylang really means; one way is via reading level - grade 3 vs grade 12; but that won’t address Lisa’s concern

LS: correct, it will not - gradel level is not sufficient; proposal on the table is to rewrite content using short sentences and simple words - but also refer to COGA task force

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> -provides a rewrite of the content using short sentences and simple language, Wr recomend using the deinfintions in <a coga tf> using short sentences and simple language.</a.

JS: how do we measure content as “easylang” - we need to be able to see that, review and make a determination;

<Thaddeus> Q

LS: this issue is being researched and addessed by COGA task force; most places/countries have definitions and requirements
... COGA is trying to pull these all together;

JF: at some point we need a normative taxonomy; if we are using definitions from another location they need to be normative

LS: COGA is a NOTE and will be on Note track; is the design requirements for cognitive
... can we as a recommendation point to a note? - suggested we use recommend in above suggestion instead of require

JS: good question - will take on finding an answer

<Thaddeus> sorry I accidently dropped

<Thaddeus> I will come back on

<Thaddeus> feel free to take me off the queue

LS: we can pull in def. from COGA and add to our spec or link to COGA

JF: our taxonomy (or the one we reference) must be normative

<Thaddeus> back on but no need to be on queue

LS: terms need to normative; definitions need to be clear - but need question above answered

JS: to clarify: Janina is going to find out if we can normatively reference a definition in a non-normative note

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> -provides a rewrite of the content using short sentences and simple language, Wr recomend using the deinfintions in <a coga tf> using short sentences and simple language.</a.

LS: this definition only recommends the definitions - not require them.

JS: let’s first determine if we can reference definitions in a note

LS: can we distinguish using should and must?

JF: wherever we publish a definition it needs to be a normative definition;

JS: maybe we need further ISO codes with it: easylang - en:us and easylang - en:uk that would refer to country definitions

JF: if we are looking for author guidance vs. normative definitions?
... there is a recognized need at W3C that is a normative asset that can be referenced (based on discussions at TPAC)

JS: that is beyond the scope of this TF - but good to note

LS: alternative is to take the definitions from the COGA task force and add them to our document. But, they are not complete yet and we will need appendix

<JF> +1 to Janina, but whatever is referenced should be normative - is all

JS: copying always causes trouble - reference is better
... we shouldn’t duplicate what another group has clear mandate to create

LS: agree prefer to point to COGA task force

JS: just want to be clear that whatever we reference for definitions need to be normative
... not sure we need to solve that now

LS: asks JF to create an issues in help module that def. should be normative;

<Thaddeus> I am here

CL: extrahelp

BG: did want to specify what type of additional information but if we are just defining vocab terms then can wait on that

LS: explain where to find information - for example, passport number - description goes beyond describedby
... perhaps that isn’t clear from the definition

CL: examples can help with that

current definition talks about an action or process which for me does trigger thinking about entering a passport number

LS: is there an action?

CL: action could be to add examples
... feedback

LS: this is getting to small content, for example, your email has been sent

CL: Lisa you are supporting my point - we need examples from someone with experience

BG: if we need an example does that mean the definition isn’t good enough?

CL: examples help to clarify; that is how I learn
... literal - is another one we all agreed upon

some examples provided by LS: bite-sized chunks' small pieces of information!

'raining cats and dogs' - it is raining heavily

'Heaving with people' - full of people

LS: context matters: you can’t write a doc. on quantum physics without using numbers so numberfree is not appropriate in that case

JS: does numberfree mean not use the numeral, 7, or not use the word ‘seven’?

LS: it means no use of numbers at all - use different words; this is one of the problems - there should be a way for people to pay their taxes if they can’t deal with numbers

<JF> +1 to Janina

JS: can understand 80% solution and think we can focus on that (and achieve that) rather than going the full 100%

LS: we aren’t requiring that everyone use these; we are making it so they can

JS: agree

CL: simplified got all 3 votes - but isn’t this similar to easylang so am now questioning

LS: agree we may be able to combine some of these; simplified means it has chunking and easylang

<JF> easylang or simplified - either needs a definitive definition (as it were)

<Sharon> +1 simplified

LS; easylang is about the language and simplified you can use lose content

JF: concerned that if we get too nuanced in the distinctions we will lose many authors
... are web authors going to get the nuances between simplified and easylang?

LS: thinking we should have all easylang, chunking, and simplified and add an editor’s note whether we need all of them or if we should combine them

<JF> +1

<Thaddeus> privacy is here

<Thaddeus> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/4

SS; I agree - I had the same issue when reading the survey and wasn’t sure how to some of the terms differed

1. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/101569/mod2alternative/results, (Including Becky's email comments this morning)

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content

CL: please review the word document and make comments

<Thaddeus> item 3 - privacy is here https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/4

<clapierre> Thanks Thaddeus

LS: please update the vocabulary page in the wiki - link above

<Thaddeus> thanks

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)

Succeeded: s/no/now/
Present: MichaelC Thaddeus Becka11y JF Sharon janina LisaSeemanKestenbaum
Found Scribe: becka11y
Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y

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: 

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.)