13:37:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #personalization
13:37:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/06/21-personalization-irc
13:37:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:37:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #personalization
13:37:28 <trackbot> Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference
13:37:28 <trackbot> Date: 21 June 2021
13:56:29 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization
13:58:46 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #personalization
13:59:08 <JF> JF has joined #personalization
13:59:14 <JF> agenda?
13:59:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> present+
14:00:06 <mike_beganyi> present+
14:00:12 <JF> Present+
14:00:20 <JF> zakim, who is here?
14:00:20 <Zakim> Present: Matthew_Atkinson, mike_beganyi, JF
14:00:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see JF, mike_beganyi, Matthew_Atkinson, Zakim, RRSAgent, Roy_, trackbot, hadleybeeman
14:00:28 <janina> janina has joined #personalization
14:00:31 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #personalization
14:00:35 <janina> present+
14:00:42 <CharlesL> present+
14:01:00 <janina> zakim, who's here?
14:01:00 <Zakim> Present: Matthew_Atkinson, mike_beganyi, JF, janina, CharlesL
14:01:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see CharlesL, janina, JF, mike_beganyi, Matthew_Atkinson, Zakim, RRSAgent, Roy_, trackbot, hadleybeeman
14:01:07 <sharon> sharon has joined #personalization
14:01:40 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
14:01:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/21-personalization-minutes.html janina
14:02:11 <Roy> agenda?
14:02:33 <LisaSeemanKest> LisaSeemanKest has joined #personalization
14:02:44 <LisaSeemanKest> present+
14:02:54 <sharon> agenda+ Editor's note (wiki page) on action-destination-purpose (following Matthew's edit) and name of the wiki page
14:02:55 <janina> https://www.w3.org/2003/08/system-status.html
14:03:00 <Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel_Wolberger has joined #personalization
14:03:06 <Lionel_Wolberger> present+
14:03:11 <sharon> agenda+ TPAC planning
14:03:19 <Lionel_Wolberger> agenda?
14:03:31 <sharon> agenda+ Summary and review of issues - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issue
14:04:37 <janina> scribe: janina
14:04:46 <janina> zakim, take up item 1
14:04:46 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Editor's note (wiki page) on action-destination-purpose (following Matthew's edit) and name of the wiki page -- taken up [from sharon]
14:05:12 <janina> sharon: A bit confused which is the note and which the wiki?
14:05:28 <janina> jf: Also have editorial actions including clarifying that
14:05:41 <Matthew_Atkinson> The note is on-list and the wiki page is https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Action-Destination-Purpose-Research-Questions
14:06:55 <janina> jf: Waiting on the finalization of our wiki before creating the Ed Note in our spec
14:07:03 <Matthew_Atkinson> Draft Editor's Note: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Jun/0011.html
14:07:56 <becky> becky has joined #personalization
14:08:06 <becky> present+
14:08:08 <janina> jf: Was blocked on name of doc
14:08:18 <janina> jf: need a name to get a pointer!
14:08:28 <janina> sharon: Understand we need to agree a name to proceed?
14:08:29 <janina> jf: yes
14:09:27 <sharon> q?
14:09:40 <JF> Propose: Action-Destination-Purpose-Deliberations
14:10:31 <JF> Q+
14:10:32 <janina> becky: Yes, my suggestion on name was to clearly capture why we made this doc for future reference.
14:10:45 <sharon> q?
14:10:56 <janina> becky: We need to capture why we made the decisions we made, so that looking in archives in the future will pull us into this page
14:10:59 <janina> ack jf
14:11:02 <janina> jf: Good point
14:11:03 <Roy> agenda?
14:11:08 <janina> q+
14:11:09 <LisaSeemanKest> maybe:  approach review
14:11:24 <janina> jf: Pasted suggested title
14:11:37 <JF> ack me
14:11:38 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
14:12:02 <JF> ask for feedback in Editor's Draft - points to wiki page with the questions/deliberations
14:12:47 <Roy> agenda+ Welcome Mike
14:13:07 <sharon> q?
14:13:32 <sharon> ack janina
14:13:55 <janina> Matthew_Atkinson: Noted welcome for Mike agendum ...
14:14:06 <JF> proposal, proposition
14:14:14 <janina> Matthew_Atkinson: but on point, Lisa suggest approach/review ... think that's nice
14:14:26 <sharon> q?
14:14:31 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
14:14:32 <janina> q+ how about decision path?
14:14:52 <Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel comments, "approach review" can misread as 'approaching review.' So I would like the longer, "Review of the approaches"
14:15:03 <LisaSeemanKest> thanks
14:15:05 <janina> Matthew_Atkinson: once we get feedback, we stay or go with a change
14:15:15 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
14:15:34 <sharon> ack LisaSeemanKest
14:16:02 <janina> LisaSeemanKest: trying to not bind us into a particular approach
14:16:29 <Lionel_Wolberger> "a review of the approaches"
14:16:37 <Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to a review of the approaches
14:16:48 <JF> -1 to passive voice
14:17:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to putting it across as a review of the approaches (I really like "approach review" but "review of approaches" is good too).
14:18:11 <Matthew_Atkinson> How about "Action, Destination and Purpose: Approach Review"?
14:18:11 <janina> sharon: Janina, where you suggesting action, destination, approaches in the title?
14:18:14 <janina> janina: yes
14:18:29 <janina> sharon: A mouthful, but may be important in the future for forensic discovery
14:19:13 <janina> jf: Prefer "review of approaches"+1 to jf
14:19:38 <Lionel_Wolberger> Review of approaches regarding action, destination and purpose
14:19:39 <CharlesL> Works for me :)
14:19:54 <janina> Lionel_Wolberger: also like "review of approaches"
14:20:03 <sharon> q?
14:20:10 <JF> Action, Destination, and Purpose: Review of Approaches"
14:20:11 <janina> Lionel_Wolberger: Lisa, when you voice it, I get it;; but not necessarily when I read it
14:20:13 <LisaSeemanKest> happy with iether
14:20:18 <janina> Lionel_Wolberger: it's an intonation thing
14:20:31 <janina> sharon: any objection?
14:20:37 <LisaSeemanKest> +1
14:20:53 <Lionel_Wolberger> Review of approaches regarding Action, Destination and Purpose
14:21:33 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1
14:21:39 <janina> +1
14:21:43 <Lionel_Wolberger> +1
14:21:46 <mike_beganyi> +1
14:21:50 <CharlesL> +1
14:21:51 <sharon> +1
14:21:53 <JF> "Review of approaches for Action, Destination and Purpose"
14:22:19 <JF> "Review of approaches for Action, Destination, and Purpose"
14:22:33 <janina> sharon: should we go with "for"?
14:22:38 <mike_beganyi> +1 to "for"
14:22:48 <becky> +1 +1
14:22:51 <CharlesL> +1
14:22:54 <Lionel_Wolberger> +1
14:22:58 <Roy> +1
14:24:53 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 for "for" but the extra comma seems odd to me
14:25:13 <Matthew_Atkinson> scribe: Matthew_Atkinson
14:25:35 <Matthew_Atkinson> RESOLUTION: Document name will be "Review of approaches for Action, Destination, and Purpose"
14:26:19 <Matthew_Atkinson> Zakim, take up item 4
14:26:19 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Welcome Mike -- taken up [from Roy]
14:26:27 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: Welcome again to Mike
14:26:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> (general introductions all 'round)
14:38:25 <Matthew_Atkinson> (Note that Lionel_Wolberger and I will be sharing notes on how to publicise the group's work.)
14:39:09 <Matthew_Atkinson> Zakim, take up item 2
14:39:09 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- TPAC planning -- taken up [from sharon]
14:39:12 <JF> agenda?
14:39:28 <JF> zakim, close item 1
14:39:28 <Zakim> agendum 1, Editor's note (wiki page) on action-destination-purpose (following Matthew's edit) and name of the wiki page, closed
14:39:30 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:39:30 <Zakim> 2. TPAC planning [from sharon]
14:39:38 <JF> zakim, close item 4
14:39:38 <Zakim> agendum 4, Welcome Mike, closed
14:39:39 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:39:39 <Zakim> 2. TPAC planning [from sharon]
14:40:58 <JF> Q+ to ask if we've resolved the i18n discussions
14:41:25 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: becky: (explain that TPAC is W3C's main meet-up in the year to allow the working groups to talk directly and collaborate; previously in-person, more recently virtual. We need to work out which groups we want to talk with.)
14:41:52 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Suggest HTML—and APA has similar needs so we should coordinate an APA-WHATWG meeting.
14:42:31 <sharon> ack JF
14:42:31 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if we've resolved the i18n discussions
14:43:23 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: i18n too?
14:43:40 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: If not before TPAC then yes. We have other groups who may need to talk to i18n also.
14:43:50 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: (Notes we can't go to CR with i18n isuses.)
14:44:17 <JF> Q+
14:44:31 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: How do we coordinate?
14:44:32 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
14:45:04 <sharon> q?
14:45:20 <sharon> ack JF
14:45:30 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: We request the who and the why (which WGs our TFs need to talk to and the agendas) and then collate them and send as appropriate to the other WG's chairs. Almost always the meetings are accepted.
14:45:50 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: What is the timetable like now?
14:46:07 <Matthew_Atkinson> Janina: the event is over several weeks; inter-WG talks are one/two specific weeks.
14:46:24 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Should we make a general (breakout session) presentation?
14:46:26 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: yes!
14:46:41 <sharon> q?
14:46:55 <sharon> ack LisaSeemanKest
14:47:13 <becky> APA TPAC planning page:  https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021#Groups_to_coordinate_with
14:47:20 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: We should meet with COGA. A lot of their active members don't know a lot about this group.
14:47:26 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: +1; need to work on agenda
14:47:52 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Module 2 prioritization, ...
14:48:14 <sharon> q?
14:48:24 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: As mike_beganyi raised low-vision, the Low Vision TF is active again.
14:48:27 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: +1
14:49:10 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: The Low Vision TF may be interested in our work and should be invited to review.
14:49:50 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Even before TPAC we should add Low Vision to a meeting with COGA to work on prioritization for Module 2. Also reference the presentation Gottfried's student made on Media Queries 5.
14:49:53 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
14:50:15 <JF> Q+ to ask about ACT And AG WGs?
14:50:55 <Matthew_Atkinson> Roy: (going to check if the presentation can be shared yet)
14:51:04 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
14:51:24 <sharon> ack JF
14:51:24 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about ACT And AG WGs?
14:51:25 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: (I was going to ask if we can review that presentation; glad to hear it's close.)
14:51:45 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: How about ACT and AG WG—getting testable statements created around the work we're doing?
14:52:18 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: If we go to TR with Module 1 before Silver goes to TR we have the option of building this into WCAG 3. So yes; maybe a joint session with Pronunciation and RQTF [other APA TFs].
14:53:17 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: We could present a general breakout session as well as specific presentations for particularl WGs.
14:53:34 <sharon> q?
14:53:42 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: The more general one is about sharing information; the specific ones are about action items.
14:53:52 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: +1 but should discuss in the APA call.
14:54:21 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: Next steps on planning for TPAC? At what point do we need to have agendas?
14:54:40 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Once decided we should add to the TPAC planning Wiki page.
14:54:52 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: (Link above; been updating as we discuss.)
14:55:27 <sharon> q?
14:55:44 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
14:56:19 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: ACT—they seem to be focused on testing statements that have been agreed already (rather than adding new things)?
14:56:21 <becky> ACT = Accessibility Conformance Testing
14:56:39 <becky> AG = Silver / WCAG 3.0 working group
14:56:52 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: It's about taking what we have specifed here, which is broad, and breaking down into specific testable statements; should help integrate our spec into accessibility guidelines.
14:56:56 <sharon> ack LisaSeemanKest
14:58:40 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: The work we're doing is aligned with the goals of Silver, and may help with adopting general principles such as those discussed in COGA's Content Usable document. We should talk to Silver and explain what our goals are; should be easy for us to provide the testable statements due to our focus on semantics.
14:59:18 <JF> +1 Janina
14:59:41 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: We need to focus on outcomes we want for the user in order to work with Silver.
15:00:12 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: +1 we need to focus on the outcomes for user; can agree the ACT part should follow, but most important is focusing on user outcomes.
15:00:31 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: So focus on user outcomes, and then when they're defined we can bring in ACT.
15:00:45 <becky> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-03_user-needs/?login
15:01:10 <becky> FAST survey
15:01:11 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: We need input on the FAST survey from all APA members.
15:02:09 <Matthew_Atkinson> becky: that's "Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies (FAST)"
15:02:09 <Matthew_Atkinson> https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/
15:03:17 <Matthew_Atkinson> (Also your current scribe, i.e. me, has been parsing that list with the Oxford comma and does appreciate how it conveys the three things are siblings.)
15:03:21 <Matthew_Atkinson> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:03:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/21-personalization-minutes.html Matthew_Atkinson
15:06:27 <janina> janina has left #personalization
15:12:56 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #personalization
16:44:56 <LisaSeemanKest> LisaSeemanKest has joined #personalization