<LisaSeemanKest> clear agenda
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/476
<scribe> scribe: CharlesL
Sharon: I am chairing today, Lisa couldn't make it.
<becky> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/68
Becky: Is section really a
field?
... , section *** is part of the spec, section-blue shipping
home for auto fill etc.
JF: I am not sure if thats correct, 2.1 section is a grouping function, legend / field set, aria-role = group Visa CC vs. MS cc. could call out in a group differently.
Becky: but it wasn't pulled into WCAG 2.1.
JF: its not the type of value that would be stored on the users computer.
Becky: we aren't taking off HTML5 we are referencing the WCAG list so we should remove it.
JF: the token values in WCAG 2.1
today can only apply to input type of text, you can't use it
for radio/checkboxes etc.
... the token values is what we want to preserve and we can
applied to other form inputs and leaving door open to add
additional token values.
Becky: Right
... does that affect section?
JF: the token values is what we
took but if we have data-purpose we want to take same token
values as auto-complete.
... auto-complete was created by browser vendors. the browser
knows what to put in this field.
... purpose of input can be reperposed.
... I am concerned we strayed from the path?
Becky: i18N wants us to know how we are going to use. HTML uses these for a particular purpose and what will we use them for?
JF: but section is an attributle
Becky: but in the spec its a value.
JF: checking. I know we talked about this when we brought this into WCAG.
Janina: I thought it was an element.
JF: auto complete is the attribute and section*** is the value.
<becky> autocomplete="section-blue shipping street-address"
Janina: what section- means is obsure.
Becky: section-blue / red etc. author has to understand that these things go together. legend says section-red is a gift for example.
Janina: the group around them is a section is HTML5
JF: when you look at the code
example 74 shows a field set and a legend with 3 labels/inputs
where the blue section-blue comes from what does this example
showing? color blue?
... , seems to me, should we include section in our spec? No A
wasn't in WCAG 2.1, and I don't know where these are being
defined, and street-address is explicitly defined
somewhere.
Becky: if it gets better defined or pulled into WCAG we will investigate further.
JF: if they have section-home or section-work would make more sense and red/blue are very arbitrary.
Becky: I agree, we don't have to solve it now but we should not include this.
JF: is it in our spec?
Becky: Yes it is.
JF: that surprises me.
Sharon: do we need an action?
Becky: we should approve my response and send it to Joanie.
<scribe> ACTION: Becky to remove section-*** from our spec
<trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Remove section-*** from our spec [on Becky Gibson - due 2020-04-13].
<becky> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/66
Becky: all of the things
mentioned here are they are destinations not actions.
... moving seems to be an action to her. post current item
seems like an action. we talked about "feedback"
... these seems more like actions than destinations. So I don't
know how we should fix this.
Janina: there are lots of words in the dictionary that are both a noun and verb. Comment could be both.
Becky: submit a comment is an action, why would you put comment as a destination.
Charles: for example if you have "Leave a Comment" would be a destination.
Becky: Left/Right are difficult
Sharon: maybe we should table this until Lisa is here.
<becky> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/135
Becky: David McDonald accessible names and roles, why do we have to repeat in ACC name and then again.
JF: an aside may not be a
distraction.
... One is for human AT and the other is for machine
readable.
Becky: different levels of distraction, ad vs. a summary. or banner add after this news article.
JF: accessible Name in French will be in french, ours is machine readable so machines is why we have our tokens and why there is overlap. Would you like me to respond to that?
Becky: yes please.
<JF> ACTION John to respond to https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/135
<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Respond to https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/135 [on John Foliot - due 2020-04-13].
<sharon> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/restructure-of-the-explainer
<sharon> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/476
Sharon: took the template from Tag and put it in the format they were looking for, and made some notes on what to do. there was a Tags issue from before, they didn't think we needed a couple of the sections that were in the explainer.
Janina: over arching was we need
to do a better job at the 30K view of what we are doing and why
what we are doing is the solution etc.
... the introduction would be a good place to do this.
Sharon, looks like she did take the existing explainer introduction, at this point she didn't want specific edits but more generally what sections we needed to remove and what to add generally. vocabulary implementations we didn't need that, stake holder feedback opposition. Is the restructure ok?
Charles: I thought there was a stakeholder section.
Sharon: do we need it, or do we take it out, but why did TAG has this in in their original template.
Becky: there are some sections we didn't need but was in your original template, if you prefer us to remove them can you explain why.
Sharon: scenario, with links to
demos should we keep scenario 1/2 or just linking is
sufficient?
... , John had an action for this but she got it into the
template, at one point you did.
JF: Let me get back to that this week… I promise, I promise, I promise!
Sharon: if you take this up then we can take this up next monday.
<sharon> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Requirements-(draft)
Sharon: she took out a lot of extra information and just specific to just requirements. Lisa wanted us to review it.
Becky: I am not sure these are
requirements.
... to me, "you are working in a markup language, …" I can't be
specific enough. we enable the UA to adapt, but thats the goal
is or "AIM". I just don't know these are requriements.
... maybe I need to go look at other requirement
documents.
... maybe look at the ARIA requirements document.
Janina: they have to have one its
a stage to move to Normative document.
... you can always write the req. afterwards but ideally you
write them first.
... Michael Lisa and I went over this last week.
... Ask Michael where a good requirements document for us to
template after.
Sharon: Becky would you like to find the ARIA one and see what is a good example.
Janina: MAUR has a good
requirements document.
... good set of user requirements it is terse, its a table..
its a complex table.
JF: took me hours to code.
<janina> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/
Becky: I will ask Michael and CC list, and please send me MAUR requirements Janina.
Sharon: is there any issues that anyone needs to discuss?
<scribe> Meeting: Personalization Task Force Weekly Meeting
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/Lisa/Becky/ Present: CharlesL JF Roy becky janina sharon Regrets: Lisa Found Scribe: CharlesL Inferring ScribeNick: CharlesL Found Date: 06 Apr 2020 People with action items: becky 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]