IRC log of personalization on 2021-04-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:20:26 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #personalization

13:20:26 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-personalization-irc

13:20:28 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:20:28 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #personalization

13:20:30 [trackbot]

Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference

13:20:30 [trackbot]

Date: 26 April 2021

13:22:28 [LisaSeemanKest]

regrets: charles

13:24:40 [LisaSeemanKest]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

comments on explainer: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0023.html

13:35:32 [LisaSeemanKest]

agenda+ comments on explainer: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0023.html

13:35:50 [LisaSeemanKest]

agenda+ thoughts for module 2

14:00:47 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization

14:00:51 [Matthew_Atkinson]

present+

14:00:57 [Matthew_Atkinson]

agenda?

14:01:16 [janina]

janina has joined #personalization

14:01:19 [sharon]

sharon has joined #personalization

14:01:23 [janina]

brb

14:01:47 [Roy]

present+

14:01:59 [Lionel_Wolberger]

Lionel_Wolberger has joined #personalization

14:02:06 [becky]

becky has joined #personalization

14:02:34 [jf]

jf has joined #personalization

14:02:39 [jf]

pRESENT+

14:02:44 [sharon]

present+

14:03:22 [becky]

present+

14:03:22 [LisaSeemanKest]

scribe: becky

14:03:38 [becky]

regrets, CharlesL

14:03:41 [LisaSeemanKest]

zakim, next item

14:03:41 [Zakim]

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 [Zakim]

... [from LisaSeemanKest]

14:04:32 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content

14:04:37 [janina]

present+

14:05:01 [becky]

LisaSeemanKest: adding some links referencing our ways of using vocabulary

14:05:15 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Prototypes-with-data-dash-*-(Take-2)#links-and-buttons--action-destination-or-action--destination

14:05:35 [janina]

q+ to ask whether we considered using computed role

14:05:45 [becky]

LisaSeemanKest: prev. link has some coding examples of using data-

14:06:09 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Use-cases

14:07:20 [jf]

Q+ to note that the values of True and False we reference are never used...

14:07:51 [becky]

janina: question came up about whether we considered using computed role from AOM.

14:08:15 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+

14:08:22 [jf]

ack jan

14:08:22 [Zakim]

janina, you wanted to ask whether we considered using computed role

14:08:34 [becky]

LisaSeemanKest: are there other issues to bring up

14:08:42 [becky]

q+

14:08:51 [Lionel_Wolberger]

present+

14:09:47 [LisaSeemanKest]

agenda+ true and false - remove?

14:10:05 [becky]

JF: wants to discuss true and false values - can they be removed?

14:11:26 [becky]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack j

14:11:30 [Zakim]

jf, you wanted to note that the values of True and False we reference are never used...

14:12:00 [LisaSeemanKest]

q+

14:12:27 [becky]

Matthew_Atkinson: my reason for suggesting combining the attributes is that I can't see a way of processing them separately;

14:12:31 [becky]

q-

14:14:01 [becky]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack l

14:14:36 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack m\

14:14:38 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Demo page: http://matatk.agrip.org.uk/personalization-semantics-explorations/demo.html

14:17:12 [becky]

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 [becky]

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 [jf]

tabs do not open new pages

14:18:43 [becky]

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 [becky]

LisaSeemanKest; interaction model is a tab but context could be different

14:19:02 [LisaSeemanKest]

Q?

14:19:03 [becky]

q+

14:19:16 [LisaSeemanKest]

Ack m

14:19:18 [janina]

q+

14:20:44 [jf]

Q+ to discuss author errors - we're too early to say whether or not it's really confusing

14:21:47 [becky]

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 [becky]

q-

14:22:20 [LisaSeemanKest]

q+

14:23:37 [becky]

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 [becky]

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 [becky]

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 [becky]

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 [becky]

q+

14:27:31 [becky]

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 [jf]

ack ja

14:27:36 [jf]

ack jf

14:27:36 [Zakim]

jf, you wanted to discuss author errors - we're too early to say whether or not it's really confusing

14:28:18 [jf]

+1 linters (w3c validator) could catch errors with explicit attributes

14:28:50 [becky]

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 [jf]

i.e. <a href="..." action="..."> == non-valid code

14:29:44 [becky]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

q?

14:30:40 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack l

14:30:46 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack b

14:30:51 [becky]

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 [jf]

it's a region, not a user-action

14:31:54 [becky]

becky: what is the issue with putting help on a region?

14:32:14 [Matthew_Atkinson]

+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 [jf]

Q+ to note that these 3 attributes are all associated to user-actions

14:34:12 [becky]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack j

14:35:28 [Zakim]

jf, you wanted to note that these 3 attributes are all associated to user-actions

14:35:38 [becky]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

1- keep as is, 2 towards merging

14:36:45 [LisaSeemanKest]

0 no prefrence

14:36:50 [becky]

2

14:36:53 [janina]

2

14:36:55 [LisaSeemanKest]

1 but cn live with iether

14:36:55 [Matthew_Atkinson]

2

14:36:58 [jf]

vote: 1 (keep as is) with a note to dicsus conflict resolution

14:37:05 [Lionel_Wolberger]

0

14:37:08 [sharon]

0

14:37:10 [Roy]

0

14:37:35 [Matthew_Atkinson]

*2 (but exploring merging it; I think we need to examine the use cases more)

14:39:00 [becky]

janina: we don't want to make a decision in haste and regret it later.

14:39:50 [becky]

LisaSeemanKest: we have already taken 2 years to investigate and made a decision

14:41:19 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+ to clarify the question and focus on use the cases/examples

14:42:00 [becky]

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 [jf]

@matthew - our goal is to encode semantics, not outcomes

14:43:08 [becky]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

Q+

14:43:31 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack m

14:43:31 [Zakim]

Matthew_Atkinson, you wanted to clarify the question and focus on use the cases/examples

14:44:12 [becky]

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 [jf]

+1 to addressing conflict resolution

14:44:51 [jf]

I propose we defer to native semantics for all of our attributes

14:45:04 [becky]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

Q?

14:47:47 [becky]

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 [jf]

ack L

14:48:00 [janina]

q+ to suggest this could be in wcag3

14:48:30 [jf]

Governmental pages too Lisa!

14:48:58 [jf]

(e.g. US Department of Veterans Affairs)

14:49:55 [becky]

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 [becky]

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 [becky]

LisaSeemanKest: doing deep exploration and finding and raising issues;

14:51:49 [jf]

easily 3 years

14:52:38 [becky]

LisaSeemanKest: we discussed this for many years and made a decision, we can't keep reopening the decision.

14:53:13 [jf]

+1 to Lisa's general point - are we really gaining a lot by revisiting this?

14:53:21 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q+

14:53:33 [jf]

Q+

14:54:25 [becky]

sharon: We have an open issues on action vs destination since 2018 and have never closed

14:55:12 [becky]

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 [LisaSeemanKest]

q?

14:56:02 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack j

14:56:42 [becky]

janina: education is also an early adopter; there is opportunity to become part of WCAG 3;

14:57:35 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack j

14:57:35 [Zakim]

janina, you wanted to suggest this could be in wcag3

14:57:44 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack l

14:58:56 [becky]

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 [becky]

rrsagent, make minutes

14:59:18 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-personalization-minutes.html becky

15:00:23 [jf]

Q?

15:00:29 [jf]

Q+

15:00:40 [becky]

LisaSeemanKest: Please look over Matthew's comments and examples.

15:01:13 [becky]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:01:13 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-personalization-minutes.html becky

15:01:26 [sharon]

sharon has left #personalization

15:07:40 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content

15:17:53 [becky]

zakim, end meeting

15:17:53 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been Matthew_Atkinson, Roy, jf, sharon, becky, janina, Lionel_Wolberger

15:17:55 [Zakim]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

15:17:55 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/26-personalization-minutes.html Zakim

15:17:59 [Zakim]

I am happy to have been of service, becky; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye

15:18:03 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #personalization

15:18:07 [becky]

rrsagent, bye

15:18:07 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items