W3C

- DRAFT -

Personalization Task Force Weekly Meeting

20 Aug 2018

Attendees

Present
MichaelC, clapierre, Roy, sgoto, janina, Lisa, John
Regrets
Thaddeus, Becky
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
clapierre

Contents


<scribe> scribe: clapierre

APA move

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> zakim: next item

the move to APA

<Roy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2018Aug/0006.html

Janina: APA charter is approved, this group needs to join APA

your AC rep needs to add you to the APA WG.

<MichaelC> APA join instructions

if anyone has problems email Janina, or Micheal

Michael, Sam it would be great for you to Join officially

<sgoto> i can follow up offline with you all

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> tps://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=83907&public=1

<sgoto> regarding membership

<sgoto> if my contribuitions are welcomed and desirable

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> very much so!

<sgoto> i'll follow up offline

Michael, ARIA's will drop as right now its overlap. Thaddeus I will add.

holidays

Janina: Intellectual Property checks must be made when moving over to the APA.

Lisa: Janina being here I am glad of this move to APA and moving this fwd.
... Anyone not be able to attend the next two weeks.

<sgoto> next week works for me too

next publications https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/actions

Janiana: Aug 27th and then Sept 3 is Labor day in the US

<JF> meet next week, cancel week of Sept 3rd.

Lisa: we need to publish mature Module 1 and explainer, and we need a draft for implementation

Are there any wishlist items for stable working draft?

Michael: I have a todo for use-cases.

explainer needs a higherlevel summary.

module itself specific use-cases in the general and which ones it is meeting.

Lisa: I will move use-cases to general (to the requirements)

Then we need to redo the introductions explainer and module1

Michael: I will be doing the update to the introduction for the explainer.

Janina: Should we walk backwards from October to publish before TPAC which is 63 days away.

Michael: Publishing Oct 18 at the latest, we do need to do a manual (Oct 16th or 11th)

FPWD Transition by Oct 9th, Oct 1st TF approval.

that means 5 weeks to get this all done. My deadline now is Sept 7th

This is for requirements, usecases and introductory like stuff.

Lisa: any problems with this approach or these deadlines?

Other issues, that need to be done other than implementations (agreeing on terms on Module 2.

What needs to be done in 2&3 other than moving the examples out?

Thaddeus has been doing great work on merging these terms out.

John, you put fwd a few issues like use-cases and introductions needing to be redone, is there anything else you feel we need to focus on other than what we are working on now.

John: I think we are moving in the right direction so I am good.

Lisa: Module 2&3 is a FWD for this module structure so its more important that we represent this new structure. Lets get this implementation conversation over with. and we may revisit this.

We came out with a conclusion that we needed more support in the environment. Could you use CSS media types how strongly bound to DOM / platform so that is something we wanted added to the tables as an important issues.

DId we go through RDFA and microdata and now we are upto ARIA? Is that were we left off.

Associated issued #54 from Michael concerning ARIA

Idea is the prefix is "aria" part of ARIA and then we have all the support of AIRA, but we need ARIA support, and they are concerned with Feature creep.

Michael: ARIA typically requires API mappings which we are not planning for.

John: problems with ARIA: ARIA WG made a handshake with Browser that they would not change the UI of Browsers which is what we want to do. 2. How much impact this has on end author, Sam and I can we figure out other ways to get the taxonomy deeper into the DOM might be the better way forward and ARIA is a little too decorative and I don't see authors taking it up if they have to start adding all these attributes.

Lisa: Why ARIA wants to map to the API, and they don't want things affecting the UI. A lot of these things were in the original charter, but as Michael points out that they had to make agreements with HTML as well to move to this new strategy on how ARIA works.

John: I think ARIA agrees that the Personalization TF belongs in APA.

Lisa: We need to add this to the Table that it will be difficult to negotiate this into ARIA.

Janina: we need to also show them that we have exhausted all other approaches as well.
... Cons for host language this is not how ARIA sees itself and that it should map to APIs in the OS. SO from integration into A11y api's doesn't work with use.

Lisa: There may be something where it can fit into their in the future where we could suggest a new role etc. but we will see if we need to do that.

John: my concern, we struggle to get authors to use ARIA properly and if we keep adding more and more there will be pushback from authors, but if we start adding more aria/aui attributes will get heavy resistance from content authors.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> JF wants to add a bullet point on authers that it is too much auther burden for declaring more attibutes

what is the principle tool which is WSIWIG editors will make them too complex

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> auther row on aui and aria

Bullet point under authors AUI/ARIA as a negative as it adds complexity

Lisa: any bullet points needs to be added?

2 bullet points to ARIA attributes and UI to be burdon to the author, but that should also be added to HTML microdata and RDFA?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> yea

Janina, that the author burden using ARIA also applies to RDFa and Microdata. We need to find ways to achieve it that minimize burden for authors.

<JF> 1

<JF> +1

Lisa: AUI attributes we don't have to negotiate with AIRA, but we have to negotiate with host language implementors, with Web Platforms (prev. Web Apps)

It straight fwd to add attributes but need to add these, would this be easier route than through ARIA. if we are talking plugins / extentions then its easier.

Michael: Leonie, may not be supportive, she might be supportive with AUI which don't make it into native features.

We could throw them out there and then have Third party use them, but this would not play nice and validators wouldn't pass.

We could do a schema if we coordinate with schema.org

Lisa: we need to coordinate with Web Platforms.

Janina: When we get these bullet points straight we could get this infront of Leonie at TPAC potentially

Lisa: Added bullet point for burden for authors

User Agents side should be simple to recognize these new attributes. We have people prepared to implement this.

John: we could coordinate with schema.org, I think we would have to look at a number of different…

Janina: Some of what we are trying to achieve could work with Schema.org but others may need a different approach.

John: Purpose = easylang, value= xyz (we need to chain them)

Michael: I can se pros/cons to 2 attributes

<JF> Lisa, exactly! thus a multi-pronged approach is, I think, the best option(s)

Lisa: you have single attribute where it is the purpose, and you have alternative text clarification text and that where you would need the value pair thing.

Embedded attribute, could you add something to the value pairs.

Can we repurpose title? title would be an interesting mech. for easy lang, possible but I am not…

Michael: micro format broke accessibility by doing that.

Lisa: related proposal for value pairs may be good. the question is we need someone to add a table with this proposal. Does someone one to do that? Problem is do they over lap. Might you want to have 2 easylang, or extra help and then we have broken it.

John: seems we have 3 scenerios: 1 taxonomy terms (1.3.5) when I have a fixed term I can expand it. 2nd an attribute point to a URL or linked with additional text. Standalone attribute and value, and then the 2nd with the URL and 3rd with the prose.

Lisa: We need someone to add this to the table.

John: I can spend a rough idea today in the wiki, I will do my best.

Lisa: I will see what I can do to add to that.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/08/20 18:05:21 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/pros/prose/
Present: MichaelC clapierre Roy sgoto janina Lisa John
Regrets: Thaddeus Becky
Found Scribe: clapierre
Inferring ScribeNick: clapierre

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: 

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]