<clapierre> agenda 2 Feedback from https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/101569/mod2alternative/results

<clapierre> agenda, replace 2 Feedback from https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/101569/mod2alternative/results

<clapierre> agenda, item2

<clapierre> Chair: clapierre

<clapierre> scribe: sharon

TPAC (Reminder https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/Overview.html#registration is July 31st)

Janina: need concrete proposals for TPAC.

Charles: Wednesday is called "Mad Scramble" and select a session topic for discussion. This might be an opportunity to get others views for personalization.
... This year it is in France.
... Possible, John, Charles Lisa and maybe Thaddeus. Sam, Sharon and Becky are not going.

Feedback from https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/101569/mod2alternative/results

Becky: Thought we decided that we were going to rely on COGA for the definitions.

Charles: We will read over the details of the comments from Thaddeus.
... Charles does not see a point to going through this. Any comments or leave this for now?

Becky: Should we add the web schema as vocabulary or other collections?
... Does not see that they are related. Not that much relevance to personalization. Link is to the accessibility schema.

Charles: Web schema, Charles helped write it as part of the digital publishing. 8 years ago accessibility feature and controls were added. Additions were also added about a year ago.
... We could do something similar and have the vocabulary. Issue is that web schemas are on the entire page. Not an element or section.

Becky: Could have a personalization summary, but have our own schema for personalization. Not a lot that pertains to personalization.

Charles: Somethings would apply to entire page, such as simplified language.
... Thinks we would create a new one for specific personalization things. Then talk to schema.org to have the attribute added to web schema for personalization.

Becky: Perhaps she meant add to the web schema. Need clarification from Lisa.

Charles: Dan and Charles could meet a TPAC and have discussions.

Janina: It would warrant APA time too.

Charles: Any objections?
... No objections

Make the https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html#description more defined.

Charles: Some of these we were thinking COGA would take the lead and others we did not vote on such as P1, P0, etc.

Becky: Maybe we add editor note that we need descriptions from COGA, or definitions that we can use.
... Can we use non-normative in a normative document?

Michael: Standard practice is to have equal or higher maturity at candidate recommendation. Can possibly get an exemption at the time. Due to tooling improvements they can identify non-normative. Need exact case in hand.

Janina: What this means is that we have to define it. COGA is not doing anything normative.

Charles: We can get them and make them normative.

Michael: COGA would reference us rather then the other way around.
... We are engineering the normative definition. We need to think through what personalization means.

Janina: Personalization applies to all accessibility, not just COGA.

Becky: Will take it on as an action item.

Charles: He could ask Thaddeus. He is working on privacy concerns as well. Assign Thaddeus to this one.
... Review and make edits to make this more solid. Need a stronger intro so people understand what we are doing.

Sam: Comments were related to a stricter set of requirements to guide the trade offs for implementations.
... Request was along the lines of a document for guiding principles when judging the merits of the proposals.

Becky: Do we need more detail in the use cases?

Sam: More concrete user journeys that we are trying to resolve, as well as developer journeys.
... Has not seen a document on how a user agent will assist a user.
... In annotating forms it is not clear what the user benefit is, that we are trying to achieve.
... What exactly is it in enabling so we can judge different examples.

Janina: A mapping of what kind of UI mechanism is helping what users.

Sam: This annotation would help the user do X and that this mechanism is the best way to solve the problem. ARIA has a very clear contract between the screen reader between ARIA roles.

Charles: In actions a button that has the text revert, you have a cognitive disability, you don't know what revert means. The property can change the words to something the user understands>

Sam: Its not obvious that it is the responsibility of the user agent, rather then the author.
... The goals are unclear.

Michael: Those are good points. Sam's questions help us understand what needs to be written down in the requirements.

Sam: From a trend perspective there is a clear trade off that is made but the reasons are not clear.

Charles: Add an issue?

Sam: Has filed two issues with decisions that include the trade-offs. One was a JavaScript API proposal. An imperative API untied to the DOM. The hard question is "Why is it that you need a declarative vs. imperative?
... Created the issue to force us to make the decision, because unification and consistency is important. Help to explain the direction.

<Becka11y> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/73

<sgoto> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/73

<sgoto> https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/

Michael: Has not participated until he understands them better, with background knowledge.

<sgoto> thttps://github.com/WICG/aom

Sam: Extensible Web Manifesto link added that might explain.

<clapierre> https://github.com/WICG/aom

Sam: Idea is to enable libraries to innovate to embed to the JavaScript API calls. The links are hopefully enough background to read about the ideas.
... Not particularly advocate, just force us to refute them with guiding principals and judge alternatives objectively.

Charles: Michael needs help with issue 73 so he understands what is being suggested.

Michael: Add more comments if they are obvious. Table of comparisons may not bring us to the level Sam is explaining.

Charles: We need to go through issues and resolve them as a group.

Michael: Need better understanding to come to a resolution.

Sam: Is available to help everyone understand. Better set of explainers and requirements doc.
... Forms and Actions are where most of the questions are.

Janina: Proceed on issue 73.

<sgoto> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/72

<sgoto> fwiw, this is where i'm asking for better requirements

Janina: Clearer articulation of goals, mapping and use cases.

Review anything anyone has recently added or modified

Charles: Nothing has been added recently. Next week we are on tap to resolve the matrix. It depends on issue 72 & 73. Understand the alternatives and whether we should pursue them. Sound good?

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)

Present: clapierre Becka11y MichaelC sgoto janina Roy
Regrets: Thaddeus John Lisa
Found Scribe: sharon
Inferring ScribeNick: sharon

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: 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.)