13:20:26 RRSAgent has joined #personalization 13:20:26 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-personalization-irc 13:20:28 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:20:28 Zakim has joined #personalization 13:20:30 Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference 13:20:30 Date: 26 April 2021 13:22:28 regrets: charles 13:24:40 agenda+ Mats discussion on attributes @action, @destination _and_ @purpose. see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0019.html 13:27:17 agenda+ Review open action items and todo items for CFC. see: https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/1%29%20content%20module 13:27:40 comments on explainer: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0023.html 13:35:32 agenda+ comments on explainer: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0023.html 13:35:50 agenda+ thoughts for module 2 14:00:47 Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization 14:00:51 present+ 14:00:57 agenda? 14:01:16 janina has joined #personalization 14:01:19 sharon has joined #personalization 14:01:23 brb 14:01:47 present+ 14:01:59 Lionel_Wolberger has joined #personalization 14:02:06 becky has joined #personalization 14:02:34 jf has joined #personalization 14:02:39 pRESENT+ 14:02:44 present+ 14:03:22 present+ 14:03:22 scribe: becky 14:03:38 regrets, CharlesL 14:03:41 zakim, next item 14:03:41 agendum 1 -- Mats discussion on attributes @action, @destination _and_ @purpose. see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0019.html -- taken up 14:03:44 ... [from LisaSeemanKest] 14:04:32 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content 14:04:37 present+ 14:05:01 LisaSeemanKest: adding some links referencing our ways of using vocabulary 14:05:15 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Prototypes-with-data-dash-*-(Take-2)#links-and-buttons--action-destination-or-action--destination 14:05:35 q+ to ask whether we considered using computed role 14:05:45 LisaSeemanKest: prev. link has some coding examples of using data- 14:06:09 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Use-cases 14:07:20 Q+ to note that the values of True and False we reference are never used... 14:07:51 janina: question came up about whether we considered using computed role from AOM. 14:08:15 q+ 14:08:22 ack jan 14:08:22 janina, you wanted to ask whether we considered using computed role 14:08:34 LisaSeemanKest: are there other issues to bring up 14:08:42 q+ 14:08:51 present+ 14:09:47 agenda+ true and false - remove? 14:10:05 JF: wants to discuss true and false values - can they be removed? 14:11:26 JF: we can rely on computed role, inferred from the native semantics or from ARIA. Action and destination carries through the semantics. Do we want the semantics implied or inferred. We do need to be aware of conflict. 14:11:30 ack j 14:11:30 jf, you wanted to note that the values of True and False we reference are never used... 14:12:00 q+ 14:12:27 Matthew_Atkinson: my reason for suggesting combining the attributes is that I can't see a way of processing them separately; 14:12:31 q- 14:14:01 Matthew_Atkinson: to justify separate attributes we need a use case that has a button that would legitimately be marked as a destination. If not, then it doesn't seem to make sense to have separate attributes. 14:14:31 ack l 14:14:36 ack m\ 14:14:38 Demo page: http://matatk.agrip.org.uk/personalization-semantics-explorations/demo.html 14:17:12 LisaSeemanKest: believe that attributes are processed differently; sometimes meaning changes, when devs. trying this some of the names were not clear enough. For example, sometimes people associated help with the region where help was provided. If it is a destination we may need to modify the name to help-page to be specific. 14:17:57 LisaSeemanKest: if purpose of the field is name, you might want "your name" as an automatic tooltip. But don't always want that tooltip 14:18:31 tabs do not open new pages 14:18:43 LisaSeemanKest: Tabs are an example - a tab to me is like a button but it also kind of opens a new page so the tab role could have a destination or it could have an action. 14:18:59 LisaSeemanKest; interaction model is a tab but context could be different 14:19:02 Q? 14:19:03 q+ 14:19:16 Ack m 14:19:18 q+ 14:20:44 Q+ to discuss author errors - we're too early to say whether or not it's really confusing 14:21:47 Matthew_Atkinson: if someone incorrectly puts help in a landmark region how do we indicate it is wrong? I have an example of how to handle incorrect attributes on my example page. I added a question page when something is asking for input, if it is on static text it uses an i (info) icon 14:21:50 q- 14:22:20 q+ 14:23:37 Matthew_Atkinson: curious what do we do when it is implemented wrong? how to resolve? If author says its a button and it has a destination, how do we resolve? This is why implementing it more simply is a benefit. I can't see a button with a destination every being valid. 14:24:16 Janina: do we want hand coding vs applying principles. Don't want to see us overwriting on a case by case basis. 14:25:42 janina: when someone puts the incorrect marking on a landmark - this is a situation where these need to be cleaned up. I would prefer these be easier to implement on a large number of pages and frameworks and eliminate the necessity of "clean up" 14:26:31 JF: I like the simplicity of Matthew's proposal but am worried to see these attributes applied incorrectly, like help on a landmark 14:26:35 q+ 14:27:31 JF: expect people to make mistakes in the begining since this is new; believe we will also need an authoring patterns doc to address Lisa's concerns for author error 14:27:31 ack ja 14:27:36 ack jf 14:27:36 jf, you wanted to discuss author errors - we're too early to say whether or not it's really confusing 14:28:18 +1 linters (w3c validator) could catch errors with explicit attributes 14:28:50 LisaSeemanKest: it is easy to make an authoring tool that can pick up the mismatch errors (destination on a button); If people use the wrong attribute it is up the AT how they handle the errors; probably depends upon the target audience. 14:29:05 i.e. == non-valid code 14:29:44 LisaSeemanKest: many of our target audience have trouble figuring things out, better to not add something to a page rather than add the wrong thing 14:30:22 q? 14:30:40 ack l 14:30:46 ack b 14:30:51 LisaSeemanKest : we know AI isn't reliable enough, that is why we need to rely on assistive techs to understand their audience 14:31:12 it's a region, not a user-action 14:31:54 becky: what is the issue with putting help on a region? 14:32:14 +1 to Becky's point that the tooltip provided for a region would be made different to the tooltip for a button. 14:33:14 Q+ to note that these 3 attributes are all associated to user-actions 14:34:12 LisaSeemanKest: it makes it much harder to the AT to implement; If there is no role how does a UA handle this 14:35:28 ack j 14:35:28 jf, you wanted to note that these 3 attributes are all associated to user-actions 14:35:38 JF: concern that we are mixing contexts - the 3 attributes we are discussing now are interactive/actionable. We want to constrain to user actions or it will be too confusing 14:36:30 1- keep as is, 2 towards merging 14:36:45 0 no prefrence 14:36:50 2 14:36:53 2 14:36:55 1 but cn live with iether 14:36:55 2 14:36:58 vote: 1 (keep as is) with a note to dicsus conflict resolution 14:37:05 0 14:37:08 0 14:37:10 0 14:37:35 *2 (but exploring merging it; I think we need to examine the use cases more) 14:39:00 janina: we don't want to make a decision in haste and regret it later. 14:39:50 LisaSeemanKest: we have already taken 2 years to investigate and made a decision 14:41:19 q+ to clarify the question and focus on use the cases/examples 14:42:00 JF: Matthew asks 3 of our attributes feel very similar and can we merge them. think we need to focus on the outcomes. Matthew's examples actually used two icons to implement the full context - are we putting more effort to understand. Would prefer to put the burden on the author 14:42:55 @matthew - our goal is to encode semantics, not outcomes 14:43:08 Matthew_Atkinson: would appreciate feedback on the issues that are found on the examples I made. I don't see a difference on how the 3 attributes would be processed differently by an AT 14:43:26 Q+ 14:43:31 ack m 14:43:31 Matthew_Atkinson, you wanted to clarify the question and focus on use the cases/examples 14:44:12 Matthew_Atkinson: regarding two icons that is to support the auto complete attribute can take two values; That is a separate issue we need to address. 14:44:31 +1 to addressing conflict resolution 14:44:51 I propose we defer to native semantics for all of our attributes 14:45:04 Matthew_Atkinson: believe we need to discuss conflict resolution no matter what direction we take with respect to single or multiple attributes 14:45:06 Q? 14:47:47 LisaSeemanKest: believe adoption of this spec will be small projects that have a big impact on a particular user group. Suspect these will be plugins to existing authoring tools rather than a completely new authoring tool. 14:47:48 ack L 14:48:00 q+ to suggest this could be in wcag3 14:48:30 Governmental pages too Lisa! 14:48:58 (e.g. US Department of Veterans Affairs) 14:49:55 LisaSeemanKest: We don't want to just cater to large organizations, if we do we will have missed the specialized audiences ( assistive living, rehab, etc.) 14:50:55 LisaSeemanKest: worried that the perfect is our enemy; we have been going around and around on this and if we keep doing that we will never finish. Appreciate Matthew 14:51:24 LisaSeemanKest: doing deep exploration and finding and raising issues; 14:51:49 easily 3 years 14:52:38 LisaSeemanKest: we discussed this for many years and made a decision, we can't keep reopening the decision. 14:53:13 +1 to Lisa's general point - are we really gaining a lot by revisiting this? 14:53:21 q+ 14:53:33 Q+ 14:54:25 sharon: We have an open issues on action vs destination since 2018 and have never closed 14:55:12 janina: we need to be aware that the computed role will likely come up with spec gets reviewed by "higher up". We need to have our reasons well spelled out and understood 14:55:54 q? 14:56:02 ack j 14:56:42 janina: education is also an early adopter; there is opportunity to become part of WCAG 3; 14:57:35 ack j 14:57:35 janina, you wanted to suggest this could be in wcag3 14:57:44 ack l 14:58:56 Lionel_Wolberger: both Matthew and I are recently recruited; I understand that there is fatigue but don't want to disregard Matthew's developer based comments 14:59:18 rrsagent, make minutes 14:59:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-personalization-minutes.html becky 15:00:23 Q? 15:00:29 Q+ 15:00:40 LisaSeemanKest: Please look over Matthew's comments and examples. 15:01:13 rrsagent, make minutes 15:01:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-personalization-minutes.html becky 15:01:26 sharon has left #personalization 15:07:40 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content 15:17:53 zakim, end meeting 15:17:53 As of this point the attendees have been Matthew_Atkinson, Roy, jf, sharon, becky, janina, Lionel_Wolberger 15:17:55 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:17:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-personalization-minutes.html Zakim 15:17:59 I am happy to have been of service, becky; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:18:03 Zakim has left #personalization 15:18:07 rrsagent, bye 15:18:07 I see no action items