<LisaSeemanKest_> clear agenda
<LisaSeemanKest_> scribe: becky
<scribe> scribe: becky
Lisa: we need to recruit more people to the task force
<janina> +1
Maybe we should try to do more presenting at conferences
charles: perhaps showing symbols, and demos we have
Lisa: What if we each reach out to people and organizations we know
Becky and Janina; we don't have people with experience to reach out to
Lisa: JF was going to work on
this but isn't on the call today
... not having this is holding us up
becky: we had outlined what we needed to review at a previous meeting
<CharlesL> https://www.w3.org/2020/03/16-personalization-minutes.html
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/476
Lisa: Need to follow the TAG explainer better, want more examples and considered alternatives
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://w3ctag.github.io/explainers#explainer-template
Lisa: make a wiki page - that seems to be enough to satisfy TAG; we can start there and JF can make changes. This will allow us to move ahead and not wait for him
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Mar/att-0022/00-part
<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/commit/708815242d4e52cb9266d18566fea0a91042713a
Lisa: Sharon worked on this - Roy integrated her suggestions, ask Sharon to review
<Roy> data-action = hide
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/
<Roy> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/requirements/#content-filtering-inception
Charles: first link Roy provided is diff showing Sharon's suggested edits; There is also data-action=hide that has not been confirmed but is in the requirements document
Roy: added this as a note
Charles: seems like we should remove data-action=hide; what would it have been?
Lisa: I think this was a list of filter words / triggers. Okay to remove for now.
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Mar/0021.html
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/133
Becky: drafted a response to I18N comments
Lisa: I have read it, there are a few things I might change but thought response was okay
Charles: we were linking to HTML purpose; didn't we think there were some non-input fields we could use these fields for. For example, a page with a home address already filled in - shouldn't that section be tagged - it doesn't have to be an input field - wasn't one of those of our use case
Lisa: it isn't going to only be for input fields
becky: this circles back to the issue I was looking at for section-****. This is the only one that is not a "purpose" that you need to input? For identifying a section of address that is already filled in
Charles: user is filling out a form with address, and submits the form, then it gets displayed (in non-editable) form - how to identify this to user
Lisa: you want the summary to have the symbol that I recognize as my address or phone, mom's maiden name
Becky: we don't think it is the AT's responsibility to interpret a heading?
Lisa: we are providing the clue to the AT but including the purpose
becky: so we are thinking that purpose can be applied to more than just input fields?
Lisa and Charles: yes that was the initial reasoning, it is not just for fields
becky: is it true that if you have an autocomplete on an input field you don't need to include data-purpose?
Charles: we need to recommend that as a best practice - AT should look at autocomplete values as well as data-purpose
discussion of what I18N question was about - really just wanted us to be aware that there may be potential changes to the HTML autocomplete values
Becky: what about section-***** ? Do we want to keep further.
Lisa: Should we use Becky's proposal and send to I18N? How to do this?
Charles: confusing on how to respond to I18N
Lisa: Change our issue to remove the draft and provide as response to I18N
<CharlesL> Here is the i18N issue
<CharlesL> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/issues/110
Charles: actually issue #110 in I18N is what needs to be updated
Becky to updated #133 and Lisa will submit into I18N issue #110
Lisa: have two more issues, #135 from David MacDonald, one at #137
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/135
becky: I will draft response to #135 - aside for example, doesn't provide enough detail about what kind of distraction
Lisa: believe we need our
requirements document to be in better shape, but I'm not sure
why or what we need to do? TAG asked for different structure
for explainer
... is is possible that if we reorganize the explainer we don't
need to re-do the requirements? What is the requirements doc
supposed to do? Is it user needs (re: the explainer) or is it
the shoulds and must list of how to meet the spec.
Janina: we can look at it from perspective of use cases or more specifically the purpose of creating a normative specifications - why did you build this technology, what does it do
Lisa: what is difference between explainer and use cases and the requirements
<Roy> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag21/master/requirements/index.html
Roy: here is the requirements for WCAG 2.1 as an example
Lisa: this is a short document - it doesn't go into use cases; this isn't a public document, it is just necessary to explain to the director? Do we have to have a req. document?
Janina: yes, we must have one, need it when transition for CR to PR
Charles: so this is more of an exec. level summary?
Janina: yes, kind of - for every feature that is normative in the spec. we need to justify why
Lisa: so what WCAG as said what they want to achieve
Janina: WCAG may not be the best example for us to rely upon
Lisa: we have lots of use cases that are poorly written using code snippets, etc.
Charles: seems we need to rewrite our req. document and make it more streamlined and less detailed
Janina: best to discuss this with Michael
Lisa: Will make a wiki page with
the headings to get started;
... I did search for requirements docs online and they were not
very detailed
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-requirements-1.0/#simplification-1
Roy: I will try to find one that Michael created original
Lisa: we got feedback that the
doc at the above URL is not a good requirements document.
... must have requirements document in better shape before we
ask for a TAG review
Janina: We need to get Michael on a call to discuss further
<Roy> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/WD-explainer-module123/requirements/index.html
<LisaSeemanKest_> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-requirements-1.0/#simplification-1
Lisa: will wait for Michael to draft up the headings
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) Present: becky janina Roy CharlesL Regrets: sharon Found Scribe: becky Inferring ScribeNick: becky Found Scribe: becky Inferring ScribeNick: becky WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 30 Mar 2020 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]