– DRAFT –
Personalization Task Force Teleconference

<Lionel_Wolberger> /invite zakim

<Lionel_Wolberger> /invite rrsagent

<Matthew_Atkinson> TPAC Breakout sessions page: https://www.w3.org/2021/10/TPAC/breakouts.html — I asked for IDs to be added to the <details> elements corresponding to the sessions. They started doing this, but have not necesarily finalised the scheme yet (not all of them have IDs). Ours happens to be the first on the page, though, so easy to find.

<Matthew_Atkinson> Ooh, and a note about TPAC: we have not merged the PR for the slides yet, so we will need to do that and then ask the TPAC team to update the URL.

<Lionel_Wolberger> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/tpac-2021-talk/talks/2021/tpac/index.html

Approve CR draft that was sent in email

Lionel_Wolberger: important to get text correct. have people read it? any issues?

<sharon> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Nov/att-0001/00-part

janina: just a little titling problem. not CR, but title announcements

Lionel_Wolberger: two items. one is the CR itself. and the second is the title announcements

janina: good to have this in advance as it could take awhile

janina: don't know how to get a date until we solve issue 144 with i18n. hoping we can resolve this sometime this year

<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel checks with Janina, are there 3 items? [1] The content itself, Module 1.0. [2] Officially asking for CR transition [3] The CR announcement

janina: usually want 30 days for CR but given end-of-year we may need more

janina: announcements that module 1 is in CR, on w3c, twitter, etc. formal process in the w3c and is very important

<Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization enables users to customize the way information is presented. It is especially useful for people with cognitive and learning disabilities. For a short introduction to personalization and additional documentation you can learn more from the Personalization Overview.

sharon: would it be appropriate to have Shawn look at this? Janina responded with yes

Lionel_Wolberger: we could improve this text in the paragraph above

janina: no issues with it unless we want to specify the "Module 1" aspect of it

<JF> +1 to Matthew

<CharlesL> +1 to Matthew as well!

<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel frowns as he realizes Matt is correct

Matthew_Atkinson: 3 things. one is about TPAC which we can talk about later. second thing is about particular naming of the Module 1. third is about naming and maturity levels of the modules

Matthew_Atkinson: we're calling it Module 1 because it's the first we worked on, but Content Module is more accurate

JF: full name is Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0

JF: suggesting Part 1 of the series in order to be most clear

<CharlesL> +1 to this

janina: conceived as part of a larger set. convey that the explainer talks about a larger set. finding a way to communicate this clearly would be useful

<Lionel_Wolberger> "We've developed a specification that will help content authors do this, where a small addition of machine-readable semantic metadata supports a range of helpful adaptations."

<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to including the bit about "a small amount of machine-readable metadata..." and thanks to JF for suggesting we big that point up in the slides!

janina: clean statement of what it does. specific enough to be informative. agree with you, Lionel

Lionel_Wolberger: slight change I would bring would be the way we refer to how we relate to COGA. the word here is "useful". we would focus on new, wider audiences. wondering if we could go in that direction

<JF> Current: "This Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0 is a component of the Personalization Semantics series introduced in the Personalization Semantics Explainer 1.0 document." Proposed: "This Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0 is intended to be Part 1 of the Personalization Semantics series introduced in the Personalization Semantics Explainer 1.0 document."

JF: what's the resolution about bullet one. are we going to accept the language or do I need to go back and make an edit to the draft.

JF: in the module there's an abstract. there, the introduction to our document, the language should synchronize with the language of something like "part one of the series". both areas should be in sync

<janina> +1 to sync, but also to staying with "component"

<JF> Proposed: "This Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0 is intended to be the first part of the Personalization Semantics series introduced in the Personalization Semantics Explainer 1.0 document."

Matthew_Atkinson: "component" is fine. keep names succinct. keep the language short but just call them what they are

Lionel_Wolberger: agree with Matthew

LisaSeemanKest_: would like to ensure we get to what happened at the meeting

<JF> Proposed: "This Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0 is intended to be the first part of the Personalization Semantics series introduced in the Personalization Semantics Explainer 1.0 document."

Lionel_Wolberger: JF's proposal above

janina: I still feel more comfortable with "component". as far as "series", qualifying "projected" series because we don't know what the final result will be. the explainer ought to have a wider scope.

<JF> +1 to deferring the wordsmithing

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to wordsmithing on email

Report on the COGA presentation

<Matthew_Atkinson> Post to our list summarising the COGA call from my perspective: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Nov/0002.html (ACK and thanks for JF's replies)

Matthew_Atkinson: presentation went well. topic about resize text and things like that. I agreed. anticipate the extensions/user agents that do the adaptations will be designed with specific users in mind.

Matthew_Atkinson: overall, it was great. thanks for all your help, Lisa. they need concrete examples to discuss which I know we're working on. should maybe invite EA and anyone else to comment. so much useful information discussed in the call. a lot of enthusiasm and experience. they are very happy to help.

Matthew_Atkinson: would be nice to attend other COGA meeting to learn more and continue building bridges

<Matthew_Atkinson> (The minutes of the COGA call are linked from the post above.)

LisaSeemanKest_: I would add that there were concrete questions. lots of discussion around symbol sets. lots of discussion from the AT perspective. how does the AT need to do it. how will it get rendered to the user. may also want to collect advice for AT.

LisaSeemanKest_: where to put the symbols, allow the user to choose the symbol set and override the symbol set, etc. isn't necessarily a thought for others to add to their extension. important to capture some guidance for AT

janina: types of questions that come up when starting to implement. learn the issues that are lurking that need to be resolved. generally around CR needs to be proved that it's implementable.

janina: CR stage that we're just on the verge of.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that this kind of advice should probably be in a Note

JF: this sounds like UAAG. useful to author that kind of suggestion/guidance. would like to see that as a separate document. would be a w3c note. in favour of working on this document,. is this something for us or COGA to work on

Lionel_Wolberger: actively looking for implementations, got positive response from TD Bank in Toronto and connecting with Scotiabank. Please knock on doors to seek implementation

LisaSeemanKest_: people we need to speak to are influencers in AT

janina: a bit afraid to do this at the moment

Lionel_Wolberger: I agree, and am hesitant

LisaSeemanKest_: might be Microsoft. they are doing something similar in a learning platform. they know about this work. we could reach out.

janina: I think we need a CR spec before we can get that happening. wanna be in CR to be pushing that.

<CharlesL> MS product called Immersive Reader

janina: talking to MS is a good idea. let's get our spec into CR and then contact them

<JF> +1 not every tool will support *ALL* of the proposed attributes in our specification

LisaSeemanKest_: will get a name at MS later

Matthew_Atkinson: ease of authoring issue ties in with the future of accessibility nicely. dealing with API issue, relevant background.

<Matthew_Atkinson> TPAC discussion (two-part) on the future of accessibility APIs. Part 1: https://www.w3.org/2021/10/26-apa-minutes.html Part 2: https://www.w3.org/2021/10/27-apa-minutes.html

JF: one step towards ease of authoring would be to get WYSIWYG editor to start supporting our attributes.

CharlesL: still waiting for Hebrew translation so I can make the EPUB

<LisaSeemanKest_> need to drop. thanks guys!

Lionel_Wolberger: we'll tackle that next week. Janina will get the draft to Steve. Charles will get the EPUB after Lionel gets the Hebrew in 2 days

janina: meeting with Steve tomorrow. can anyone join? Lionel can