<scribe> scribe: becka11y
CL: have completed my action items
<CharlesL> ACTION-21: Will change distraction advertisement to offer and update the description.
<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-21 Will change distraction advertisement to offer and update the description..
CL: actions 21-25 have been completed
<CharlesL> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/rewrite-prototype/content/index.html#values
CL: follow link above - sort by
value; distraction-chat has been updated
... auto-updating has been updated
<CharlesL> Information that is presented in parallel with other content and updates frequently with or without user interaction, unless the auto-updating is part of an activity where it is essential.
JF: where are we making the distinction that this is essential? Who is responsible? This is a design pattern, one we see frequently - should just assume it is essential?
CL: any issue removing “is essential” from auto-updating?
JF: auto-updating is deemed to be a distraction for some users; assuming it is essential - what do we envision happening - if it is essential can it be removed?
CL: perhaps move the location - always presented to the user in a certain area of the page
JF: tagging a content that is a distraction; it is auto-updating -but what can we do about it? It seems user should be able to disable the auto-updating but that could break functionality?
CL: could hide it
BG: not all auto-updating is essential - timer could update every second but user could prefer it every minute
CL; there are different opportunities; need to give the developer that chance to identify
JF: are we expecting content author to provide an accommodation or just to tag it and then we expect an AT to handle removing the distraction; do we consider user interaction an auto update (example: adding another item to a shopping cart and price updates)
JS: is important to understand who does the modification? Issue with auto-updating; example: shopping site search, it adds additional items and more get added as I scroll; I examine than decide a previous one is what I really want - but, then I can’t find it anymore; how is this sort of distraction handled
JF: ... sounds like the problem of auto-updating feeds - as I scroll down more content is added (example: Facebook); I am struggling with the “then what” part - how is auto-updating handled?
JS: design pattern of auto-updating you can’t always swipe backwards to find the previous contents
JF: not sure how that relates to auto-updating; As author I have tagged this but I don’t understand who provides the functionality to change - who provides that functionality? 3rd party or is it the content owner?
JS: perhaps this is an issue with aria-live? live updating is definitely disruptive if you are screen reader user
<JF> When content is marked with aria-live and aria-alert, then they've already "tagged" the content as content that auto-updates
JL: is an issue for coga users that don’t have the benefit of the “cure” that aria-live provides (via screen reader)
<JF> so not sure why we need a second mechanism for that
CL: need Lisa for this conversation; need to provide guidance on how a 3rd party might use (but not a requirement)
JS: aria-live - screen reader figures it out after the content has been tagged
JF: aria-alert has switch between assertive and polite; the content is already being marked up to indicate that it is updating; perhaps we don’t need another tag
CL: is aria-live similar enough that we should combine the two? perhaps we just need to call out the similarities; we are already calling out input focus; perhaps we tied this to aria-live and give people who are not using screen readers the benefit
JF: there is an agreement that aria does nothing to the user interface - by design
JS: we are revisiting that history - by design ARIA does not affect the user interface
CL: can we remove that auto-updating is essential?
JS: we need to include Lisa in that decision
CL: also updated a few examples
as part of action items
... added 2 new examples to auto-updating: stock ticker and
countdown timer
<CharlesL> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2019Nov/0011.html
CL: refer to email link
above
... last week we took up offer/advertisement, message, and
chat
JF: offer also has open ended essential clause
CL: we need to revisit the use of “is essential” clause
JF: with essential clause people will just say that the functionality is essential and then will do nothing
<CharlesL> distraction
<CharlesL> message
<CharlesL> Communication sent to or left for the user.
<CharlesL> This needs better clarification. Is this a message that is added into the user interface or something that is not essential that is displayed within the static interface? Perhaps removal of a static message of this type would fall under simplification? Although these types of message blocks can also be a distraction. A message that gets added to a user interface would be data-distraction=“message auto-updating” if it updates
<CharlesL> more than once.
JF: we seem to have multiple
items that refer to the same thing; auto-updating/message -
overlay/popup - how are these different
... are we creating the list for technology or outcomes
JS: this is definitely what we need to consider - outcome vs technology
JF: concerned that the list is becoming too long and won’t be implemented or used properly
JS: Lisa is our pipeline to COGA - which is where this is coming from; we won’t get to a resolution by ourselves
CL: perhaps we can combine some of these as suggested
JS: have that issue today - many things render differently in various browsers
JF: people will struggle with the nuances - need to better define and constrain
CL: need Lisa’s input
... let’s look at the explainer; I need to do security audit
before we go to TAG;
<CharlesL> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
CL: also need to make sure
everyone reviews and that it serves the correct purpose
... reviewing hierarchy of explainer...
BG: I reviewed it this morning; I thought the structure and content was sufficient; some links within implementation wiki (that was referenced from explainer) were broken
JF: already see an issue with bullet about advertisements and separating from content; have to be careful as many websites rely on advertisements to keep the lights on (make sufficient income to fund the website)
CL; need to work with the advertisers so they understand that they will lose some set of users if they don’t provide accommodations for those users
JF: we need to be careful to specify that content creators MUST do these items - if so it will never be taken up or go anywhere
CL: so you are suggesting that moving the advertisement bullet point is in our best interest?
JF: no, needs wordsmithing to be less intimidating
JS: agree, there are cases where you might want to find the advertisement
JF: differentiate 3rd party content from authored content
CL: need to clarify what is “native” and what is from 3rd party
JF: need to get away from the word “advertisement”
CL; asks JF to review that bullet point and come up with alternative wording; look for additional items that might be problemmatic
SS: will also review
Happy Thanksgiving to all the US folks!
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 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/agenda- item3// Present: CharlesL janina JF Becka11y Sharon roy Regrets: Lisa Found Scribe: becka11y Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y Found Date: 25 Nov 2019 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]