<LisaSeemanKest> do we have a call now?

<sharon_> Yes

<janina> OK

<scribe> scribe: becky

<sharon_> scribe: becky

Review introduction - Content Module

<sharon_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/content-janina/content/index.html

becky: concerned about reference to auto-generated rendering in introduction

JF: Am concerned because this is very different than the edits I sent out on June 12

becky: John's edits don't seem to be in the mailing list

JF: just resent mail from Friday; Will need to review this new language as it is different from the one I made edits to

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Jun/0019.html

discussion of timing of messages - both JF and Janina made updates

Janina: concerned about people missing some of the posts coming on lists

Sharon: Janina has changed abstract and introduction sections; review Janina's sections and John's edits and reconcile

<sharon_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/content-janina/content/index.html#background

Janina: edits are substantial - people should read and respond

JF: confirming where Janina made edits - abstract and introduction (all parts of those two sections)

Lisa: not all use cases are mentioned in abstract for example distractions

Janina: believe abstract should be short and sweet

Lisa: you have touched on some of the reasons for personalization but not all

Janina: believe I have covered all of our overall use cases between both abstract and introduction

JF: first 3 topics are not about distractions
... action, destination, purpose, simplification, symbols, and distraction but only addressing 3 in the abstract/intro
... proposes adding machine learning to part of the intro; also want to refer different modalities

<JF> The Content Module enhances web content by providing machine-readable information about form controls, icons, and other user interface elements.

Janina: good to reference WCAG different modalities SC

<JF> plus add content referencing WCAG 1.3.5 "Output different modalities"

<LisaSeemanKest> use case : https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Use-cases

<JF> This specification is designed to enable authors to add extra semantic information at the element level about content to enable personalization for the individual user, including providing extra support and enabling user agents for people with learning and cognitive disabilities.

<CharlesL> @JF isn't 1.3.5 a WCAG 2.1 criteria? https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/identify-input-purpose.html

Lisa: concerned that we are only referring to one use case in the abstract

JF: I think I have addressed that in my rewrite
... can we review the word document that I made edits to
... shares screen - will start with terms; replaced "action Using data" to "action using data-action
... other editorial changes that were repeated throughout document; most changes within example section
... simplification (3.4.1) refereneces note about advertisements - not sure what that means?
... this seems related to adblockers?

Janina: I don't think this was about ad blockers; but I think COGA is trying to reduce the number of adverts overall; I would be comfortable leaving out ref. to advertisements

awk becky

JF: agree - don't want to cut of revenue streams

Lisa: this note was about websites knowing stuff about you (for example, interested in women's stuff) and adjusting menus to priorities this; that is good

JF: I believe what Lisa mentioned is captured a few sentences about that refers to a context attribute

Lisa: yes, we used to have a context attribute

charles: yes, need to figure out reference to context attribute; if we know certain content is an advertisement perhaps there can be a user specific location on the page but the user can skip it

JF: suggesting that if content is tagged a specific way user agents can reposition it

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to discuss adverts

<LisaSeemanKest> good catch John!

Janina: there is also the issue that something is related to what you are looking for rather than the actual item you were looking for
... searching for a hub and cables get also listed - and users can easily end up with the related item rather than the desired one - believe this is a COGA user case

JF: I this section needs a rewrite - I will note that so we can move on to review the rest of doc. changes; most was formatting and spelling mistakes
... 2 examples for data-distraction but not anything for sensory message - we need to explain what a sensory message is.
... above is discussion about data-distraction examples 6-8

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

JF: will rework those two example
... Section 3.6.1 - take two sentences into 1? It feels a bit awkward. It does seem simplistic but it also adheres to simple writing

Lisa: perhaps merge into one sentence

JF: agrees - merge into one sentence
... general discussion of a proposed rewrite

Janina: who benefits is the question to keep forefront of our discussions

Lisa: rewrite doesn't capture symbol to symbol translation

Janina: should capture Lisa's point about symbol to symbol translation to allow for conversations between symbol set users

Lisa: what we had originally is not captured. "The symbol attribute identifies the concept of symbols" should stay

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to speak against "indeitifies"

Janina: I don't think we are identifying concepts - perhaps exploses a user need would be better (or something similar to capture user needs)

<janina> ~q+ to follow up with lisa on where the concept is identified

Lisa: Want the first sentence as it was: The symbol attribute identifies the concept of symbols. Then address the idea of changing from text to symbols

Janina: believe identifying concepts doesn't work if you haven't defined what they are

Lisa: symbols have been defined below

Janina: but that doesn't explain it

Lisa: believe that is all in the explainer - believe that we generally describe how to use in the other modules

Janina: need to include enough for developers to build in this document. If we need to explain further have a link/reference to more details (in the explainer)

JF: the symbol attrib enables changing test to symbols for users who are unable to process text content. It also facilitates....

Lisa: it says what it is for but it doesn't say that it maps text to a concept node for a symbol.

JF: proposes: the symbol attrib enables changing text to formal symbol sets for users who are unable to process text content.

<JF> "The symbol attribute enables mapping text to formal symbol sets(*) for users who are unable to process text content. It also facilitates conversion from one formal symbol set to another, enabling users of differing sets to communicate with each other (translation). The symbol attribute accepts a numeric reference number."

Lisa: use mapping rather than changing

JF: will update the document
... will post as a google docs as well

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/W@CAG SC 1.3.5 "Outpyut/WCAG 1.3.5 "Output/
Present: Roy becky JF CharlesL
Found Scribe: becky
Found Scribe: becky
Inferring ScribeNick: becky

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/

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.)