Personalization Task Force Teleconference

17 Aug 2020


janina, becky


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

<scribe> scribe: becky

Explainer updates


bg: combined TAG explainer with draft explainer and made some verbage changes
... pulled in most of the use cases - left out the first cup of tea image

lisa: suggest change Use Cases heading to Use Case Examples
... example, sign language avatar (embedded video clip) could come up to sign additional info about buttons, actions, etc.
... important for Deaf or hard of hearing who may also have a low reading level
... this is the importance of personalization, developers can easily make small extensions to support specific needs
... Allows extensions and technologies to suit personal needs.

Janina: point about mistranslation within explainer - needs clarification
... we aren't saying anything about problem of translating between symbol sets in this draft; Users learn a specific symbol vocabulary and there are many of these, we provide a mechanism to facilitate communication for people who use different symbol sets.
... asks Lisa for clarification about mis-translations

Lisa: automatic translations that don't work - keywords that are mistranslated can throw off the meaning and things go haywire.

Janina: do we need that level of info in the explainer?

Lisa: we would like people to be exploring machine learning - it can have benefits

Janina: I can see the info about mis-translation in use cases but not in the explainer.
... Users learn a specific symbol vocabulary but here are many of these and they are mutually unintelligible. Personalization offers a mechanism to translate between symbol sets to allow people to communicate where it was previously not possible.

add communicate with one another where it was ....

Janina: suggested changing the language from people needing something to making it more actionable - becky made those changes in this draft.

Tag response

Module 1 abstract

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Aug/0011.html

ss: review abstract that Lisa proposed

Lisa: reads proposed abstract

Janina: I like it but it is too long for an abstract;

Lisa: want abstract to stand alone and let people know there are more than 1 module

Janina: not worried about multiple modules, yet; Would keep it to two to three paragraphs, including the bulleted list is fine; Great info, just too much for an abstract; Can move some of it into the introduction.
... might want to refer to cognitive early on to distinguish from general population; help make distinction that this is allowing broader reach / accessibility.
... include "cognitive, learning, and other disabilities" near the beginning of the abstract

becky: I can look into this - make it use plain language and shorten. Integrate into introduction if necessary

Tag response

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2020Aug/0010.html

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/476

Lisa: we did send to the TAG and they responded in their wiki;
... Add my proposed response (first link) to the tag issue 476
... We made changes to the explainer specifically for TAG, it was well received by one member but we may still get additional feedback;
... we explained that we are not an API and we did restructure the explainer

Janina: we need Michael to read this before sending to TAG again

Lisa: will discuss at coordination call
... Roy please bring this up with Micahel

Janina: we will bring it up at the APA coordination call

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/476

Lisa: review to this in the context of the above issue 476

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Explainer-for-Personalization-Semantics

becky: the one in the wiki is the TAG explainer ( link above)

CR announcement messaging

Janina: Shawn will help but we need to provide drafts

Lisa: who are we targeting? Do we have this from the wide review draft?

Janina: we should start with that as the base
... probably in the WAI announce list

<LisaSeemanKest> Colleagues:

<LisaSeemanKest> The W3C's personalization<https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/>

<LisaSeemanKest> Semantics Task Force of the Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working

<LisaSeemanKest> Group is requesting a second wide review of our Personalization Semantics

<LisaSeemanKest> module 1 (Adaptable Content) and the accompanying Explainer document. We

<LisaSeemanKest> request your comments by Wednesday 10 March.

<LisaSeemanKest> We aim to make web content adaptable for users who function more

<LisaSeemanKest> effectively when content is presented to them in alternative modalities -

<LisaSeemanKest> including people with cognitive & learning disabilities.

<LisaSeemanKest> The Explainer is available here:

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-personalization-semantics-1.0-20200127/

<LisaSeemanKest> The Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0 specification (Updated Draft)

<LisaSeemanKest> is available here:

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-personalization-semantics-content-1.0-20200127/

<LisaSeemanKest> We especially request continued feedback from:

<LisaSeemanKest> * Those involved in WCAG 2.2 development, because we believe our

<LisaSeemanKest> normative specification provides conformance techniques to proposed

<LisaSeemanKest> Success Criteria for WCAG 2.2, such as Essential Controls.

<LisaSeemanKest> * Those involved with ACC symbols accessibility and inclusion so we can

<LisaSeemanKest> continue to refine and optimize our specifications to better

<LisaSeemanKest> accommodate their scenarios.

<LisaSeemanKest> We would expressly draw your attention to Sec. 3.1 of our specification as it

<LisaSeemanKest> is particularly critical. If you have time only for a partial review, please

<LisaSeemanKest> review Sec. 3.1 available directly at this web link:

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-personalization-semantics-content-1.0-20200127/#action-explanation

<LisaSeemanKest> Our current drafts incorporate feedback from earlier drafts in our activity.

<LisaSeemanKest> For that reason alone we need to request your second look at our

<LisaSeemanKest> specification--because much has changed.

<LisaSeemanKest> We are also publishing for review and comment a First Working Draft (FPWD) of

<LisaSeemanKest> a requirements document available here:

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-personalization-semantics-requirements-1.0-20200130/

<LisaSeemanKest> Please note that the Personalization Semantics Content Module is

<LisaSeemanKest> intended to become a W3C recommendation eventually, while the other two

<LisaSeemanKest> documents, the Explainer and the Requirements document will become W3C

<LisaSeemanKest> Notes.

<LisaSeemanKest> We appreciate your time reviewing our specification and accompanying documents

<LisaSeemanKest> afresh. Responses to this wide review call will determine whether we are

<LisaSeemanKest> ready to advance the Module One specification to W3C Candidate Recommendation

<LisaSeemanKest> (CR) status. It will also help us determine whether we are ready for certain

<LisaSeemanKest> required internal W3C quality reviews.

<LisaSeemanKest> To comment,

<LisaSeemanKest> <a href="https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/new">

<LisaSeemanKest> file an issue in the <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr> personalization semantics GitHub repository</a>.

<LisaSeemanKest> If this is not feasible, send email to

<LisaSeemanKest> <a href="mailto:public-personalization-tf@w3.org">public-personalization-tf@w3.org</a>

<LisaSeemanKest> (<a href="https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/">archives</a>).

<LisaSeemanKest> Comments are requested by <strong>10 March 2020</strong>.

<LisaSeemanKest> In-progress updates to the document may be viewed in the

<LisaSeemanKest> <a href="https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/">

<LisaSeemanKest> publicly visible editors' draft</a>.

<LisaSeemanKest> Thanking you in advance,

<LisaSeemanKest> Janina Sajka, Chair

<LisaSeemanKest> Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group

<LisaSeemanKest> Lisa Seeman & Charles LaPierre, Co-Facilitators

<LisaSeemanKest> Personalization Semantics Task Force

<LisaSeemanKest> All the best

<LisaSeemanKest> Lisa Seeman

<LisaSeemanKest> Colleagues: The W3C's personalization<https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/> Semantics Task Force of the Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group is requesting a second wide review of our Personalization Semantics module 1 (Adaptable Content) and the accompanying Expl

<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-announce/2020JanMar/0002.html

Janina: above is the version that was sent to the wai announce list
... probably want to rev. the explainer working draft soon so we can point to that

Lisa: asks Janina to update this draft

Janina: are we ready to publish an updated WD of explainer? probably need to run by APA first

Roy: also need to resolve I18N issue

<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Ai18n-needs-resolution

<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/155

<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144

<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/141

Roy: need to close these before content module can go to CR

becky: looks like we have responded but issues are not closed

Janina: they do have a dashboard - we may need to update a status on that dashboad; we may need to flag them there?

Roy: I will confirm with i18n how to best close these issues

becky: asks Roy to take care of images within the explainer - make sure they are in correct space

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/08/17 14:58:51 $

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)

Present: janina becky

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!

Found Scribe: becky
Inferring ScribeNick: becky
Found Date: 17 Aug 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]