IRC log of personalization on 2021-05-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:39:41 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #personalization

13:39:41 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-personalization-irc

13:39:43 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:39:43 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #personalization

13:39:45 [trackbot]

Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference

13:39:45 [trackbot]

Date: 24 May 2021

13:40:06 [LisaSeemanKest]

agenda+ issues https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/1%29%20content%20module

13:43:47 [LisaSeemanKest]

regrets, becky

13:48:15 [janina]

janina has joined #personalization

13:59:46 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization

13:59:49 [CharlesL]

CharlesL has joined #personalization

14:00:04 [Matthew_Atkinson]

present+

14:00:10 [CharlesL]

present+

14:00:11 [Matthew_Atkinson]

agenda?

14:01:08 [Sharon]

Sharon has joined #personalization

14:01:09 [LisaSeemanKest]

scribe: Matthew_Atkinson

14:01:14 [JF]

JF has joined #personalization

14:01:16 [Sharon]

present+

14:01:19 [JF]

Present+

14:01:24 [janina]

present+

14:01:31 [Matthew_Atkinson]

RRSAgent, make minutes

14:01:31 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-personalization-minutes.html Matthew_Atkinson

14:01:39 [LisaSeemanKest]

zakim, next item

14:01:39 [Zakim]

agendum 1 -- issues https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/1%29%20content%20module -- taken up [from LisaSeemanKest]

14:01:44 [Lionel_Wolberger]

Lionel_Wolberger has joined #personalization

14:01:49 [Lionel_Wolberger]

present+

14:02:01 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/66

14:02:41 [JF]

+1 Lisa

14:02:54 [LisaSeemanKest]

topic: johns and matt action

14:03:07 [Matthew_Atkinson]

topic: johns and matt action

14:03:28 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Topic: johns and matt action

14:03:39 [CharlesL]

agenda?

14:03:50 [LisaSeemanKest]

agenda + matt and johns action

14:03:57 [LisaSeemanKest]

zakim, take up item 2

14:03:57 [Zakim]

agendum 2 -- matt and johns action -- taken up [from LisaSeemanKest]

14:05:50 [Matthew_Atkinson]

JF: Looking into the question of merging attributes with Matthew_Atkinson. There are different options in terms of how/how many attributes to merge.

14:06:18 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... We are putting together a list of use case scenarios to illustrate particular aspects of mark-up where developers may have confusion.

14:06:36 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... E.g. help: how/do we need to express that as an action/destination/...?

14:07:24 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... We would like to take these use cases to people, such as on this call, and maybe others, to think about how we would mark up each of these [short] scenarios.

14:07:54 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... Also thinking about other different people in W3C (e.g. Patrick Lauke, Steve Faulkner, implementors with whom LisaSeemanKest is working) to get their views on how the things should be marked up.

14:08:12 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... We need to come to a decision but don't need to stop progress whilst we do this.

14:10:08 [Sharon]

q?

14:10:21 [Sharon]

q+

14:11:07 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Matthew_Atkinson: +1 to what JF said. Some approaches posed in the Demo page, but we thought of others. Could see what we're doing as filling in a matrix of use cases/approaches, but we first want to seek views of people as to how to mark up the use cases.

14:11:32 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: We have already gone through this exercise with implementers, taking their feedback.

14:11:52 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: ... Important to bear in mind this was from practical experience with actual implementations.

14:11:52 [JF]

and a strong +1 to weighing the value of what implementers are already supporting.

14:12:05 [LisaSeemanKest]

q?

14:12:10 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack s

14:12:36 [JF]

+1 Sharon

14:12:49 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: Was expecting a whilte paper with a link from an Editor's Note in the spec to the paper. Didn't realise we were stopping CfC again.

14:12:51 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+

14:14:28 [JF]

Our current Working Draft dated January 2020: https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/

14:15:18 [JF]

W3C Editor's Draft 17 May 2021: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/

14:15:22 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Matthew_Atkinson: We're not trying to hold up the process - will work on Editor's Note.

14:15:38 [JF]

Q+

14:15:54 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... Have any significant changes been made since the last round of feedback from developers? (E.g. action/destination value changes)

14:15:56 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: No

14:16:21 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Should the issue be reopened?

14:16:59 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: The understanding was that the paper would help us avoid going over this decision again in future, as we'd have somewhere to point to to explain what we were doing and why.

14:17:16 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: This doesn't seem to be what was resolved last wek.

14:18:42 [JF]

Q?

14:19:03 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: The issue seems to be being reopened beyond what was agreed last week; we should postpone for now.

14:19:28 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack m

14:19:34 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack j

14:19:47 [Matthew_Atkinson]

+1 (fine to postpone)

14:20:57 [Matthew_Atkinson]

JF: Currently we have a working draft and editor's draft. We are proposing to place a note in the editor's draft to signpost that we are thinking about merging.

14:21:08 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Need to postpone until we have draft wording for the note.

14:21:22 [LisaSeemanKest]

zakim, close item 2

14:21:22 [Zakim]

agendum 2, matt and johns action, closed

14:21:23 [Zakim]

I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:

14:21:23 [Zakim]

1. issues https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/1%29%20content%20module [from LisaSeemanKest]

14:21:37 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/66

14:22:22 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/#values-0

14:23:12 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: I think Joanmarie's concerns with destinations have been resolved, but not actions?

14:23:40 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Can someone check?

14:23:41 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+

14:24:19 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Are we merging or not (determines next steps)?

14:25:09 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: There are some issues that relate to action/destination/purpose.

14:26:22 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: We should be able to deal with implied essentiality levels (#184) today, perhaps others (#170)?

14:26:47 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: We need to confirm that the changes proposed were made.

14:27:18 [LisaSeemanKest]

q?

14:27:21 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack m

14:28:40 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Matthew_Atkinson: Anything I'm posting assumes any changes to action/destination/purpose are _not_ going ahead.

14:28:52 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... Regarding #66, think we have "end" as an action and a destination.

14:30:26 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Do we prefer extra comments in a new issue or on the same thread?

14:31:10 [Matthew_Atkinson]

This is the URL I was using for the duplicate "end" attr value: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/

14:31:34 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: If it's a different issue, then it needs to be a new issue.

14:31:34 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/#values-0

14:32:17 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+

14:33:07 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Matthew_Atkinson: the TR version is older than the Editor's Draft version.

14:33:19 [Matthew_Atkinson]

JF: It's over a year older.

14:33:31 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: There seems to be a problem with the Editor's Draft version.

14:34:06 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: Maybe that Roy was making an edit to somehing which bumped the version.

14:34:29 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Didn't JF make a PR that was merged recently? That would've gone into the Editor's Draft?

14:34:43 [Matthew_Atkinson]

RRSAgent, make minutes

14:34:43 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-personalization-minutes.html Matthew_Atkinson

14:35:15 [Matthew_Atkinson]

topic:

14:35:38 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Need to discuss on coordination call.

14:36:09 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: There is a holiday next week [as well as for some of us today].

14:36:24 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Be sure to file new issues if a comment is not clearly an extension of the issue at hand.

14:37:03 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: Will check on #170

14:37:46 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/184

14:38:36 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: simplification has "critical", "medium" (the default) and "low"

14:39:18 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: "critical" is to be used for controls that are essential for the key function (from the user's perspective)

14:39:50 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Note the definitions of the levels: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/#values-2

14:41:19 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: What was the reasoning for "delete" being critical?

14:41:39 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Matthew_Atkinson: Just wanted to understand the reasoning—by the definitions in the spec it may only be sometimes.

14:42:01 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: "escape" can be critical if the user is completely stuck without being able to access it (but not always?)

14:42:39 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: options (1) leave as-is; (2) make it implied critical; (3) make it critical but change the definition of "critical" such that it's included.

14:42:47 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+ to ask about relationshiop with "cancel"

14:43:48 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: do we feel that "escape" should be included? If you're making an app for someone with a progressive disease such as Alzheimer's, and they need to reduce the complexity of the UI

14:44:07 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... then when we are looking at an absolutely minimal set of functions to send an email, do we need "escape" or do we just want "send"?

14:44:18 [JF]

"Escape" always exists (close the browser window)

14:44:22 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Tempted to say that we may still want "escape" to be there.

14:45:01 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q+ just to point out, Apple left escape off their keyboard

14:45:36 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack m

14:45:36 [Zakim]

Matthew_Atkinson, you wanted to ask about relationshiop with "cancel"

14:46:00 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Let's deal with escape and cancel relationship next.

14:46:11 [LisaSeemanKest]

+1 for impies criticle

14:46:36 [CharlesL]

q+

14:46:41 [LisaSeemanKest]

0 eave as is

14:47:10 [JF]

in that scenario, what is the difference between cancel and escape?

14:47:15 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Lionel_Wolberger: will cancel be included with escape? What would the user do if they had written an email that they no longer wish to send?

14:47:41 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Is "cancel" currently classified as critical?

14:47:42 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Sharon: yes

14:48:00 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Lionel_Wolberger: so we're asking if we need to add "escape" as being critical even though they have "cancel" and "send"?

14:48:11 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: They may not have "cancel" in any given UI.

14:48:29 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: "escape" may not always close the page.

14:48:47 [LisaSeemanKest]

other way

14:48:49 [CharlesL]

q-

14:48:52 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Seems that it should also have an implied simplification of "critical". Escape would always close the page; cancel may not.

14:48:59 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q-

14:49:28 [LisaSeemanKest]

+1 for impies criticle on eskap

14:49:47 [LisaSeemanKest]

(Implied simplification = "critical".) on escape

14:49:50 [LisaSeemanKest]

+1

14:49:56 [CharlesL]

+1

14:50:00 [Matthew_Atkinson]

0

14:50:07 [JF]

0

14:50:09 [CharlesL]

q+

14:50:19 [JF]

ack just

14:50:19 [Zakim]

just, you wanted to point out, Apple left escape off their keyboard

14:50:32 [JF]

ack charles

14:50:36 [JF]

Q+ just

14:50:54 [Matthew_Atkinson]

CharlesL: if there wasn't a cancel option on the page, but the developer put in an "escape" action, then the "escape" would be critical. If we are leaving both in, and the developer could choose either, we should make both critical.

14:51:07 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... Also I am happy to add a note to the document to that effect.

14:51:12 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack j

14:52:09 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Lionel_Wolberger: This was a sidenote to mention that Apple left Esc off their keyboards for a while.

14:52:24 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: A note would be good becuase Escape is critical when "cancel" is not available.

14:52:41 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Does everyone agree with adding that sentence?

14:52:42 [Matthew_Atkinson]

+1

14:52:44 [Lionel_Wolberger]

+1 to adding the sentence

14:52:47 [LisaSeemanKest]

+1

14:52:49 [Sharon]

+1

14:53:29 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: The second part, about cancel and escape and the relationship between them.

14:53:47 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... I think it's more like a Venn diagram with interlocking circles where sometimes they're related but sometimes they're not.

14:54:00 [JF]

Q+ to muddy the water

14:54:01 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... E.g. cancel may close a form but not a whole window of the application.

14:54:16 [LisaSeemanKest]

ack q

14:54:47 [JF]

ack me

14:54:47 [Zakim]

JF, you wanted to muddy the water

14:54:54 [Matthew_Atkinson]

JF: Was going to ask about "undo"—or do we want to leave this for now. I like your analogy of the Venn diagram. Can leave this for now if it would delay progress.

14:55:44 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: "undo" is about returning to the prior state before making changes. Thinking of people who have perhaps got moderate dimentia, and may be able to perform tasks on the web when three buttons are availalbe [in a box] but adding a fourth would be too much.

14:56:09 [Matthew_Atkinson]

... It may be useful often, but not often enough to add it in this extreme case of critical controls.

14:56:57 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Do we mark this closed, or wait until feedback from CharlesL?

14:58:15 [LisaSeemanKest]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/182

14:59:05 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Definition: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/#description-3

14:59:49 [becky]

becky has joined #personalization

14:59:54 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: perhaps it normally has a value of low (default?) but it could be used for things that are triggers. So should leave as-is?

15:00:16 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: It can't be critical, but it could be moderate or low.

15:00:25 [LisaSeemanKest]

leve as is ?

15:00:27 [LisaSeemanKest]

+1

15:00:43 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Lionel_Wolberger: What if a distraction is an alarm, where something has gone wrong and we need to get your attention?

15:00:44 [CharlesL]

CharlesL has left #personalization

15:01:05 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: We defined distractions specifically as things that are non-essential.

15:01:11 [LisaSeemanKest]

detracting content should be distractimg

15:01:46 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Lionel_Wolberger: Thank you for all of your facilitation.

15:01:52 [Matthew_Atkinson]

+1

15:02:00 [JF]

+1 to thanks

15:02:01 [LisaSeemanKest]

non-essential detracting content should be non distractimg

15:02:17 [Matthew_Atkinson]

LisaSeemanKest: Leave distraction as-is?

15:02:26 [LisaSeemanKest]

+1

15:02:38 [JF]

+1 (with the spelling mistake fixed)

15:02:41 [LisaSeemanKest]

any objectins

15:02:43 [Lionel_Wolberger]

+1

15:02:46 [Matthew_Atkinson]

0

15:03:05 [JF]

I can meet next monday

15:03:55 [janina]

https://www.w3.org/wiki/Holidays

15:04:25 [JF]

I can

15:04:26 [LisaSeemanKest]

who can make next week

15:05:30 [Matthew_Atkinson]

RRSAgent, make minutes

15:05:30 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-personalization-minutes.html Matthew_Atkinson

15:56:37 [LisaSeemanKest]

LisaSeemanKest has joined #personalization