Meeting minutes
Janina to draft a response to [i18n issue #144](https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144)
Sharon_: [ACK janina's resposne.]
Sharon_: [ACK the published WDs]
<Sharon_> https://
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about "what list"?
Write up from John on issue #170 - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/170
JF: [Work ongoing]
Sharon_: (Recollects that we were going to have a note to demarcate this/prefers-reduced-motion.)
becky: Not all distraction is about movement.
JF: prefers-reduced-motion is a UA setting applicable to the entire document. Our mechanism is at the element level. So we can keep _some_ things moving (if important) and some not. It is more granular.
JF: Related is the metadata issue; our attributes are being used to supply metadata at the element level. I can write a note to explain this, but where should it go?
becky: Let's note that there is an overlap.
Sharon_: [Agrees with the idea of making such a note]
Lionel_Wolberger: The CSS directive _could_ be applied on a more granular basis.
JF: ACK; though it may be ignored by some AT. It's a reference, whereas our approach is an attribute. prefers-reduced-motion would most often be applied at page level, though in theory could be applied at element (or more precise) level.
Lionel_Wolberger: Liked JF note that CSS is about removing rendering from semantics. We are dealing here with semantics specifically. Perhaps this can form the basis of our response?
JF: Will do a write-up.
JF: Is this something we want in the spec?
janina: Suggest an Editor's Note
JF: We are looking toward future AT that may exist. Also distractions may be auditory.
Sharon_: Yes, we did some work on distractions being sensory. (Ref November 20th, 2020 minutes.)
Sharon_: We have (W3C) actions; GitHub and the Actions page in the wiki.
Lionel_Wolberger: We propose to make the wiki more general (pointers to things) and maintain the (W3C) action tracker and GitHub. Open for discussion.
Sharon_: We can use the (W3C) action tracker, but usually they correspond to an issue that already exists in GitHub. So if we have an action, there should be a matching GitHub issue. So we are really tracking things in GitHub but can have pointers from other places.
<Lionel_Wolberger> GIT: https://
Action: TRACKER: https://
<trackbot> Error finding 'TRACKER'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://
<Lionel_Wolberger> WIKI: https://
janina: Understand the proposal is to drop the wiki actions tracking? Fine by me. I like the W3C action interface, like JF—it works across groups and is a good place for us to track W3C things. Confident we're going to continue to use GitHub generally.
janina: I would like to continue using W3C actions as well.
Sharon_: ACK that we may be using W3C actions as a personal TODO list; OK to track issues in GitHub and make pointers to the other places.
JF: W3C actions tracker is good for us to use (across groups). Should we be filing GitHub issues to correspond to our actions?
janina: An individual must open a GitHub issue.
JF: If I assign myself an action, am I also repsonsible to create a GitHub issue.
janina: Don't think so necessarily.
becky: Most of the time these are personal actions in response to GitHub issues, so can be used at personal discretion.
JF: In summary: GitHub issues is the official tracker, but we can keep using W3C actions tracker for our own work.
Sharon_: (agrees)
becky: If we agree to do something and we're not using W3C actions tracker, then we should file an issue to track it? Or I'm just responsible in whatever way works for me?
Sharon_: If it's an official thing the group needs to do/affects the module, then we need a GitHub issue, but usually the actions are filed in support of an existing GitHub issue. We could open one if need be.
Sharon_: Lionel_Wolberger: how shall we handle the wiki now?
Lionel_Wolberger: we propose that the wiki has some general statements and will continue to be of help, but for tracking actions we'll use the other tools. GitHub will be our list of record. Every action must be recorded, and if it becomes significant we'll make an effort to put it in GitHub.
Lionel_Wolberger: We continue to find W3C action tracker useful (especially due to Zakim integration).
Lionel_Wolberger: Is this OK with everyone?
+1
<JF> +1
<Lionel_Wolberger> +1
<becky> +1
<Sharon_> +1
<CharlesL> 1+
Sharon_: [will take the action to update the wiki]
TPAC planning: meeting owners preparing as per list, https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021
https://
janina: We hope to resolve the i18n issue soon.
janina: COGA would like to discuss some things with i18n also.
janina: Joint meeting betwen COGA and Personalization: COGA should suggest the agenda; the facilitators should meet to schedule this and keep APA chairs in the loop.
janina: There is a large timezone spread.
janina: Regarding introducting our specs in general: moved this to a breakout session. Open question as to whether we want to introduce all APA publications in one session (Personalization, Pronounciation, real-time comms, ...).
janina: If there are specific things that Personalization needs to talk with Silver about then we should have that as a specific meeting. There could be interest in this.
janina: There's a pointer to the Silver organisation page at the bottom of ours.
janina: Now we are pointing to specific meetigs (rather than general ideas for meetings) even though they have not all been assigned times yet. There are places to list agenda and key participants etc.
Sharon_: Shall I go back over the minutes and add the assignments we agreed on to these meetings?
janina: Yes please
Sharon_: Now we are down to 2 issues, are we in a position to start looking at the next module?
janina: Yes, perhaps we should be talking with COGA about it at TPAC, too.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that I have to get crackingon the editorial review of Module 2
janina: JF: do you have a reference to the HTML requirement to use data-* attributes when prototyping?
JF: (will look it up)
JF: We're not quite ready for CR yet (partly due to action on CSS note). Also my editorial review of modules 2 and 3 (consistency).
JF: We are not expecting any substantive changes to our spec after i18n issue is resolved (it's mainly an issue of helping i18n understand what we're doing).
janina: Would be good for everyone to re-read it top-to-bottom as CR is important.
Sharon_: Yes, please read through the WD Explainer and Content Module.
janina: The Explainer will remain a working draft (WD); eventually it'll become a Note but as it's not normative it won't ever go to CR. It may not become a Note until after Module 2 is done.
Sharon_: Module 2 has only 2 open issues.
Matthew_Atkinson: Notes we have https://
janina: There is an APA-sponsored WAI-wide meeting about a WAI-wide (or W3C-wide) glossary TPAC meeting.
Matthew_Atkinson: There are some issues without labels; we should triage.
Matthew_Atkinson: Unlabelled issues: https://
Sharon_: Let's check them out now...
<Sharon_> https://
Matthew_Atkinson and janina: This relates to infrastructure (Roy/Michael).
Sharon_: Next issue: https://
Matthew_Atkinson: I think we should check for any overlap with terms here, as COGA's glossary is published.
janina: We should check for terms when doing our top-to-bottom readthroughs.
becky: We said we'd point to COGA's when ready; sounds like it is now?
Sharon_: We should check for consistency.
JF: In Content/Module 1 there's no formal glossary. We do have a vocabulary (which is not a glossary but could be misconstrued?)
janina: We'd need to check if COGA's glossary defines anything with the same name as we have.
Matthew_Atkinson: (after group discussion we agreed to ask Lisa if she feels the issue relates to module 1)