W3C

- DRAFT -

Personalization Task Force Teleconference

28 Sep 2020

Attendees

Present
becky, janina, CharlesL1, Roy
Regrets
Chair
sharon
Scribe
becky

Contents


<scribe> scribe: becky

video

<janina> https://ln.sync.com/dl/04f8c9330/6wk4ff4v-77wd78s5-ge6wc24s-vm3iwxwm

Janina: have a finished video that has been submitted. Link above is not the final so please don't share it, yet. Will have a W3.org location soon
... once we have that we can add to personalization page and APA page; looks good and communicates our message well

Explainer - https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/explainer-compare/explainer.html

Sharon: what is status?

becky: this is the latest editors draft: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
... don't believe this has been updated with Lisa's editing - she wanted to do red-line editing; Janina was going to wait for Lisa's review before editing

Sharon: still need editorial work on the public explainer

Requirements - https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/explainer-and-requirments-sep-2020/requirements/index.html

Sharon: requirements - was becky doing anything

becky: Needs a red-lining review for requirements; had concerns about what a req. document was; asked Michael; probably okay to go with red-line edits
... there is a big difference in the new version Lisa proposed; I don't think that people have reviewed

sharon: I can take a look

Review GitHub Issues 155 with Becky's updates for added values - https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issue155/content/index.html#values

becky: added start/end, up/down, updated left and right

sharon: extra column for up

becky: I will fix
... and issue a pull request; we still need a note in the issue #155

Charles: notice two respec errors in upper right

Roy: I will fix those errors before publish

Tag explainer - any updates? (Bliss issue and stakeholder feedback section)

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

sharon: discussed addition stakeholder/feedback section

Roy: got feedback from Alice (see link above); need to focus on those issues

Charles: this is referencing the content - not the missing stakeholder section

becky: reads review

Janina: looks like they looked at this carefully

becky: isn't the reasoning for picking an attribute within the explainer?

Janina and others: yes, believe we did

sharon: I thought the vocabulary comparison addressed the issue of microformats

Charles: we have addressed the distraction issue

sharon: there are many new forms of movement that designers are using

Janina: need distinction of advertisements - some are a nucense
... others are helpful; shouldn't be forced to deal with ones that are a nuisance
... I can draft a response to that

Charles: haven't we addressed autocomple issues?

sharon: can't you turn off autocomplete via the browser

charles: autocomplete can only be used on certain forms - our usage is more generalized

becky: may need to update that section in the explainer - but is that even in the explainer - did they dive into the content module?

Janina: yes, seems the request for a reserved prefix is getting more scrutiny

Charles: do we need to verify what explainer?

Janina: they should have been reading the TAG explainer but they may have followed the links and read
... need to draft answers for each of the questions; we can discuss the answers at the TAG meeting at TPAC
... I believe we have answers for all of these and just need to pull them together

Sharon: believe we did address microformats in our vocabulary comparisons
... regarding request for examples (2nd bullet) we do have examples, are they looking for more specific assistive technolgies examples
... there seems to be wider use

Janina: yes, we may need to have additional revs as this is understood better

sharon: so we can discuss at TPAC
... I think we just need to go look at and find out what we do have that addresses some of these issues

Janina: Becky and I can follow up as chairs - thank them for thorough review; stress that we will have answers for our discussion at TPAC
... will draft up a response for the advertisement/ distraction question

Charles: do we know when John is back?

Janina: I believe he said mid-October

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: 2020/09/28 14:42:29 $

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: becky janina CharlesL1 Roy
Found Scribe: becky
Inferring ScribeNick: becky
Found Date: 28 Sep 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]