Personalization Task Force Teleconference

03 Aug 2020


LisaSeemanKest, janina, JF, Roy, CharlesL, becky, sajkaj


<LisaSeemanKest> clear agenda

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: becky

, draft ed note from janina see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Aug/0002.html

JS: see updated link - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Aug/0003.html
... says we rely on data- section in HTMLand that we were asked to take that direction from TAG (need link for that)
... also has a caution to implementors that method will change based on future conversations
... data- can not advance to PR so gauranteed that it will go away or be replaced

<LisaSeemanKest> who is ok with this note?

<sajkaj> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<CharlesL> +1

<sharon> +1

LS: are people okay with this note


<Roy> +1

bg: do we want to discuss TPAC

JS: also need to look at issue #160

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Aug/0003.html

JF: not sure how well documented the request from TAG was; think request from TAG came from TPAC from Portugal

group discusses which TPAC - seems like it may have been TPAC in Leon


LS: need to know which groups we need to speak to and about what

JS: this came up unexpectedly this week. believe list is WICG and WHATWG (if any representatives). Agenda is CR and data- replacement
... also have to include the TAG; we need to get out the explainer in the next couple of weeks

LS: should we meet with COGA or WCAG about what module to work on next?
... want to get input on user need

JS: possibly meet with silver

LS: should we meet with anyone for anyone about metadata

CL: regarding metadata we should probably talk to publishing - give them an update since they will have some personalization needs within EPUB

JF: next module in order is help and support - that's where we also have items that have more relevance to publishing - numberfree, easylang, etc
... see some of help and support going more mainstream in publishing; spread word the personalization is more applicable than many people realize

<LisaSeemanKest> - wicg - cr and data dash

<LisaSeemanKest> - wtwg - cr and data dash

<LisaSeemanKest> - incubators

<LisaSeemanKest> - tag

<LisaSeemanKest> - silver?

<LisaSeemanKest> - publishing / dpub on metadata and module 2 and updates, and what are their needs

<CharlesL> Publishing aka DPUB

JS: WICG, TAG, WHATWG - CR and data dash
... metadata and silver - is issue #160 - path

<JF> Issue #160: https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/160

JS: publishing and silver for metadata and issue #160 - path

silver issue

<JF> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/160

JS: under discussion is that conformance may no longer be page based; could use p13n style of attributes to define a particular path for specific user needs
... there are multiple ways info is represented - provide a path through for specific user needs
... good for discussion at TPAC; silver asked that we consider this and is probably of interest to publishing as well

JF: adding definition and binding of steps through a task since there may be multiple paths; like a pre-defined breadcrumb path
... not sure where this would live - we don't have anything like that defined but do we want to consider adding to one of our upcoming draft modules - perhaps help and support

<JF> Oops! We actually have it already: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/tools/index.html#stepindicator-usage-example-explanation

LS: module 3 has paths and steps; module 2 has functional req. of alternative content - which could be an alternative path - do we combine them for this

JS: can we updated issue #160 to point to module 3
... I like the term path instead of step indicator - is well understood in architectural accessibility
... architectural relates to physical space

<JF> I note that we'll likely need some kind of binding mechanism for those step/path indications, in instances where there would be multiple paths on a screen/page

LS: user1st has questions about this

JS: why isn't User1st participating if they have interest

LS: have tagged this issue as a feature request; good to have discussions about it at TPAC

JS: include silver and DPUB in meetings

JF: want to go into that meeting with a proposal

<JF> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/160

<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: lisa, start wiki page for brainsorm on #160

<trackbot> Error finding 'lisa,'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/track/users>.

<JF> ACTION: LisaSeemanKest to set up wiki page for Issue #160 (https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/160)

<trackbot> Error finding 'LisaSeemanKest'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/track/users>.

review f explainers, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Jul/0022.html

<LisaSeemanKest> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/explainer-compare/explainer.html

LS: explainer has become more urgent, to get out before TPAC

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Jul/0022.html

<JF> +1 to generic

LS: TAG explainer abstract is more generic - prefer that; like having more use cases in the general explainer
... are people comfortable with that

bg: more images and code in the tag explainer

JS: don't think that having code is a problem
... same for images

<JF> HUGE +1 for including code

CL: someone has already applied to #160 (previous agenda item) - there may be multiple paths or divergent paths

JF: really likes the idea of including code - helpful when discussing topics with people who speak different languages - code is often more universal way of communicating

bg: also rearranged why we need personalization section - now has nested lists

<LisaSeemanKest> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/explainer-compare/explainer.html#why_accessibility

LS: think the first level bullets should be numbered and lower level as bullet points makes it simpler

<sajkaj> +1

LS: like the idea of more use cases and broader scope abstract

JF: believe the other attributes in module 1 that are not symbols will be most used

JS: but symbols have higher PR value - we need to take advantage of that

JF: action, destination, purpose are beneficial in early days of AI

JS: we have a slot in the W3C AI workshop - perhaps we should present

LS: COGA has examples

JS: Jutta will cover built in biases of AI/ML at the workshop
... we also have issues with tools - making sure they are accessible
... example: google earth to define the most accessible path from point a to b

LS: John's point is that the attributes can be used for training
... that is important

JS: can contribute to RQTF proposal - suggests Lisa attend the meeting on Wednesday

BG: believes the decision on explainer is: keep updated more generic abstract from TAG explainer; updated bulleted list ot make first level numbered; use the use cases from the TAG explainer

LS: TAG explainer had more clarification on scope and non-goals

JF: need single new bullet point in Explainer that addresses language translation out of scope - no translation of symbols from one natural language to another; english to english symbols - not english to french symbols
... believe that was addressed in TAG explainer and needs to be in generic explainer

LS: any issues with media queries to discuss at TPAC?

<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: backy make updated explainer

<trackbot> Error finding 'backy'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/track/users>.

JS: need to coordinate that via APA and will need specific questions
... need to set up a new time for personalization coordination call

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: backy make updated explainer
[NEW] ACTION: lisa, start wiki page for brainsorm on #160
[NEW] ACTION: LisaSeemanKest to set up wiki page for Issue #160 (https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/160)

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/08/03 14:58:49 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/replaces/replaced/
Present: LisaSeemanKest janina JF Roy CharlesL becky sajkaj
Found Scribe: becky
Inferring ScribeNick: becky

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 03 Aug 2020
People with action items: backy lisa lisaseemankest

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]