13:07:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #personalization
13:07:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/03-personalization-irc
13:07:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:07:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #personalization
13:07:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference
13:07:58 <trackbot> Date: 03 May 2021
13:08:10 <sharon> agenda?
13:08:58 <sharon> agenda+ Proposed decision-making process (Lisa) - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0029.html
13:09:15 <sharon> agenda+ Action, destination, and purpose (multiple emails) - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021May/0000.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0034.html
13:09:49 <sharon> agenda+ Conflict resolution (John) - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0032.html
13:10:05 <sharon> agenda+ True/False values (John) - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0022.html
13:10:23 <sharon> agenda+ Review other action items https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/actions
13:53:59 <LisaSeemanKest> LisaSeemanKest has joined #personalization
13:56:20 <JF> JF has joined #personalization
13:56:26 <JF> agenda?
13:56:35 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization
13:56:44 <JF> Present+
13:58:23 <Matthew_Atkinson> present+
13:58:35 <Matthew_Atkinson> agenda?
13:59:51 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #personalization
14:00:22 <CharlesL> present+
14:00:26 <CharlesL> agenda?
14:01:38 <Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel_Wolberger has joined #personalization
14:01:56 <Matthew_Atkinson> zakim, next item
14:01:56 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Proposed decision-making process (Lisa) - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0029.html -- taken up [from sharon]
14:02:04 <Lionel_Wolberger> present+
14:02:06 <CharlesL> scribe: Matthew_Atkinson
14:03:06 <JF> APA Decision Policy: http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/decision-policy
14:03:22 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: There was at least one +1 to this process; there's also an APA decision-making process (via Janina).
14:03:40 <LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/decision-policy
14:03:56 <becky> becky has joined #personalization
14:04:01 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: We need to not conflict with the APA process. That seems focused on CfCs. We can tailor our policy as long as it doesn't conflict with APA's.
14:04:03 <becky> present+
14:04:09 <JF> Q+
14:04:12 <becky> rrsagent, make minutes
14:04:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/03-personalization-minutes.html becky
14:04:29 <becky> q+
14:04:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: (We can add some things where there is no conflict.)
14:04:56 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Understand that formal decisions go to CfC.
14:04:57 <sharon> ack JF
14:05:08 <Matthew_Atkinson> s/Understand that/I understand that/
14:05:43 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: "strives to reach consensus via unanimous agreement" - doesn't _have_ to be unanimous
14:06:43 <JF> W3C Process (Consensus) https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#Consensus
14:06:46 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: We _try_ for unanimity but it's not absolutely required. We try to find something on which there's full consensus though. This is a W3C tenet "art of consensus" (not going for a majority vote).
14:07:50 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: Could you propose a different wording?
14:08:03 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Do we need another decision process? Could we use the W3C (or APA) process?
14:09:21 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Our process is lacking as we've made decisions and re-opened them in the past. We need to agree on e.g. how often we can have the same discussion.
14:09:44 <sharon> q?
14:10:01 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: The W3C process allows for re-opening issues as needed.
14:10:07 <CharlesL> q+
14:10:33 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: The W3C process states that a chair may open an issue if there's new information.
14:10:34 <sharon> ack becky
14:11:09 <JF> +1 to better documentation
14:11:18 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: We don't need a new policy, but we should have a page that records decisions and when they were made (it's fine to re-open if new info/perspective). We need to have a place we can go to find the outcomes and reasoning behind the decisions.
14:11:56 <sharon> q?
14:13:14 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #personalization
14:13:17 <sharon> ack CharlesL
14:13:40 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: agree with JF and becky. I think the concern was that we're delaying things by rehashing previous issues. Current situation involves a new member trying to understand why certain decisions were made. We do have the matrix and wiki page, but it doesn't document the reasons for the decisions. That's what we need.
14:14:37 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: When we open up for wide review, we'll need to be ready to provide the answers.
14:15:10 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: Shall we have a place on the wiki to capture this info?
14:16:02 <JF> Q+
14:16:28 <JF> ack me
14:16:31 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Consensus seems to be for the above; I think we should have a defined process. The first time we decided on this issue was about 5 years ago, and we made a statement to developers that we wouldn't make substantial implementation changes, but we have since made such changes.
14:17:03 <sharon> q?
14:17:20 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Does anyone want to have a more defined decision policy?
14:17:30 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: sounds like we are OK with capturing the information.
14:18:11 <JF> Q+
14:18:12 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: +1; we need this as we'll move on and forget about the details in future.
14:18:25 <sharon> ack JF
14:18:48 <CharlesL> q+
14:19:52 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Appreciate LisaSeemanKest's concerns. Implementation issues were raised in the past (which caused me to join). Don't want to slow progress, but also don't want to rush too much.
14:20:23 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Current debate is part of the process.
14:20:27 <sharon> ack CharlesL
14:21:12 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
14:21:30 <sharon> ack LisaSeemanKest
14:22:14 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Things may have changed since the last major implementation change (or not) but worth investigating [scribe note: hope this paraphrasing is OK]
14:23:00 <JF> We started with data-* based on TAG feedback, and the goal of a non-prefixed attribute remains
14:23:21 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: We comitted to stability but overrode it, which caused implementations to need to be redone.
14:23:42 <becky> q+
14:24:11 <sharon> ack becky
14:24:21 <CharlesL> q+
14:25:06 <sharon> ack CharlesL
14:25:13 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: There may have been adoption concerns that forced our hand somewhat.
14:25:48 <LisaSeemanKest> this is not what i remember, but i dont think it matters. is this conversation going anywere?
14:25:56 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: We've refined the document considerably over the past few years.
14:26:24 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: If values are well-defined, it becomes much simpler to change the implementation.
14:27:03 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: There is a lot of legacy code, demos, prototypes and all of these things get outdated when things change.
14:27:18 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Suggest we move on to the next item.
14:27:28 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
14:27:50 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
14:27:58 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: Agree, we need to move this on.
14:28:16 <JF> +1 to better documentation
14:28:17 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: Shall we agree to document resolutions on the wiki?
14:28:20 <CharlesL> +1 to documenting that!  Yes
14:28:22 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1
14:28:41 <Matthew_Atkinson> Zakim, next item
14:28:41 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Matthew_Atkinson
14:28:58 <sharon> q?
14:29:04 <JF> ack M
14:29:06 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
14:31:07 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: Thanks to sharon for the research.
14:31:09 <sharon> agenda?
14:31:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: Also, seems we have to resolve things like conflict resolution before attribute meging (or not) so maybe if we are having problems deciding this, we could look at that first?
14:31:46 <sharon> ack LisaSeemanKest
14:34:54 <CharlesL> +1
14:38:23 <Matthew_Atkinson> zakim, take up item 3
14:38:23 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Conflict resolution (John) - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0032.html -- taken up [from sharon]
14:39:27 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: We have three attributes that correspond to three common activities: linking; activating buttons; filling in form fields.
14:40:25 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: There can be a conflict between the native semantics and the personalization attributes. E.g. a link with role of button is considered by screen readers as a link.
14:40:35 <sharon> q?
14:40:46 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Are we looking to have strong semantics (c.f. ARIA, which overrides native semantics) or be more passive?
14:41:08 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Do we say that if you put an action attribute on a link it's non-conforming?
14:41:35 <CharlesL> q+
14:41:41 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: If we merged them we'd not be changing the native semantics; it would have to be passive.
14:41:47 <sharon> ack CharlesL
14:41:55 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Wasn't thinking anything we do will change the underlying roles.
14:42:01 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
14:42:06 <JF> Q+
14:42:20 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: We're looking at hints.
14:42:27 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
14:45:32 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Apr/0035.html
14:45:44 <sharon> ack JF
14:46:06 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: was thinking of 8 cases: can we say for each: (1) what does it mean/is it valid? and (2) how do we expect UAs/extensions to act on behalf of our users?
14:46:25 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: As we're not trying to override, we don't change the element, but we are providing more info about it.
14:46:59 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: We should have a statement about not changing semantics in our spec.
14:47:19 <sharon> q?
14:47:46 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: We had some examples where both action and destination would be used; they feel like edge cases but we want to be sure if we don't need them.
14:47:59 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Can we resolve today that our goals is _not_ to change native semantics?
14:49:05 <JF> PLUS ARIA is not supposed to change the UI
14:49:12 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: The initial vision was to be part of ARIA and have implied semantics. But we've moved away from this, at least in part, and not everythign we're doing maps to an accessibility API.
14:49:57 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: there's still space to say that something should be on a button or a link, and at least give warnings [to developers].
14:49:58 <JF> Proposal: the personalization attributes will not change the native semantic of an element. (+1 to getting this into the W3C validator)
14:50:22 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: ...so I think it should be "should" level rather than "must".
14:50:54 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: We may need to write a DTD/schema.
14:51:12 <JF> WHAT WG no longer useDTD/Schemas
14:51:35 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: Shall we look at Matthew's attribute value examples?
14:51:36 <LisaSeemanKest> Q?
14:51:48 <sharon> ack LisaSeemanKest
14:52:12 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Some of this seemed to not be from the spec?
14:54:46 <JF> correct, for example the ACTION for help is actually action-"opens-in-page-help"
14:55:07 <CharlesL> q+
14:55:12 <JF> Q+
14:56:32 <sharon> q?
14:57:22 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: The first set are intended to invovle something that is both an action and a destination. The second set are about something that is only an action. As LisaSeemanKest pointed out, the first set seems invalid per the current spec; will revisit.
14:57:36 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Anything that's invalid, per standard UA convention, would simply be ignored.
14:57:40 <sharon> ack CharlesL
14:57:47 <JF> ack me
14:58:16 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Understand the questions now; set 1 as discussed isn't correct as we resolved those issues.
14:58:29 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: If we combined them, then now we don't have that level of validation.
14:58:50 <JF> +1 to Charles
14:58:57 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Still some nuance as to whether we combine or keep separate.
14:59:00 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
14:59:11 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
14:59:48 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
15:00:26 <sharon> ack LisaSeemanKest
15:00:48 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: destination of "signin" (not action) exists. So if it's a login page, we can use a link. What if it's a button that opens a signin form?
15:00:50 <JF> Action="opens-in-page-help"
15:01:07 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: If it's a button, might it be the submit button?
15:01:15 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
15:01:54 <Matthew_Atkinson> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:01:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/03-personalization-minutes.html Matthew_Atkinson
15:27:06 <LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_coga
15:27:34 <LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_coga
15:31:06 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #personalization