Personalization Task Force Teleconference

24 January 2022


becky, CharlesL, janina, JF, Matthew_Atkinson, mike_beganyi, Roy

Meeting minutes

Content Module Implementations Status (Follow-up on i18n issue #144)

Matthew_Atkinson: Lisa and I have been working on extension. I am refining code to apply to example. will be sharing with chairs of i18n

Matthew_Atkinson: found the code that deals with mappings. get the code to apply the mapping and load the correct symbol.

janina: glad about data dash. i18n is more concerned that symbols will display correctly, not necessarily as important to finalize mapping

janina: can always work out better mappings later

janina: does it work and does it display? does it change direction? most important

Lionel_Wolberger: suggest we have at least 3 symbols and rotate between them. one is not sufficient to demonstrate

janina: draft e-mail to i18n in order to facilitate potential meeting but APA to i18n chair to resolve issue 144

Defining short names for the modules

Lionel_Wolberger: we will require that the names appear in the modules

janina: and the names are used consistently in the modules

<Matthew_Atkinson> Note for the minutes: JF suggested: "Personalization: Content Module", "Personalization: Help and Support Module", "Personalization: Tools Module" - HT https://www.w3.org/2022/01/10-personalization-minutes.html

janina: we've agreed the first word should be "Personalization".

janina: last word is always "Module"

Matthew_Atkinson: issue of semantics or alternative content. the outcome seems to be yes we're talking about both. I like the schema that JF suggested

Matthew_Atkinson: we should look a tthe URL and whether we want to have dash semantics (-semantics) in the URL

<Matthew_Atkinson> The URI for the latest published version of the Content module is https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/

JF: first three attributes of module 1 are taken up far more frequently than the symbol attribute. I think it's important but it's really about semantics. we're providing metadata. the larger effort is providing machine parse-able metadata

janina: are we discussing whether to include "semantics" in all module names? should we discuss this now or look at remainder of titling and then decide later?

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 to provisional titles for subsequent modules

janina: are we discussing whether to include "semantics" in all module names? should we discuss this now or look at remainder of titling and then decide later?

LisaSeemanKest: don't want to run the risk of having things left out

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to agree with Lisa on the schema

janina: pulling the word "semantics" increases our options for naming. might be information in explainer to clarify this. it is use to lock in the first and third words (personalization and module respectfully)

<JF> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html#moreinfo-explanation

JF: acknowledge Lisa's concern, but important to be clear so we have path forward

JF: returning to semantics, one of the keys in the attributes is to support other modalities, including highlighting buttons. we are facilitating the ability to point things out and tagging them with metadata

<JF> +1

janina: want to acknowledge that primary approach has been driven by COGA. however, the word "personalization" suggests a lot more than that scope.

janina: I don't see a problem other than finding another word instead of "personalization" which isn't worthwhile

<JF> +1

<JF> -1

LisaSeemanKest: you want to include COGA's concerns re: metadata and implementation. limiting the scope and strong concensus is required

<janina> -1

janina: do we need a poll? plus one for having semantics to the left of the colon in titles, and minus one to not have that

JF: we're struggling with the definition of semantics. right now, attributes that apply metadata. intent to enhance the semantics of the element. when I say semantics I mean the meaning of meaning. this is a link to help. what does that mean? what does help mean?

<janina> I'm not hearing the question answered?

JF: have machines know what help is when users will engage with that link

JF: not the same as using fixed taxonomy terms we have for other attributes

<LisaSeemanKest> are triger terms semantics?

sharon: do we need semantics in the title, and question two, what do we define as the titles for modules 2 and 3

<JF> adding semantics to elements via metadata

Lionel_Wolberger: I would like to continue what JF started. I like adding semantics to elements that causes them to be machine-readable

<JF> "Programmatic Personalization"?

Lionel_Wolberger: the word "personalization" doesn't sit well as it can be misinterpreted. when I think about "personalization semantics" because a lot of semantics we are adding assistance as we understand it. maybe pull out a definition of "personalization"

Lionel_Wolberger: enabling websites for a particular set of ability. that's what personalization means to us. just discussion, not about decisions. "personalization semantics"

<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel says to Lisa, Adaptive does kind of work

LisaSeemanKest: "Personalization: Adaptive Content Module" as a title? [considering word "Adaptive"]

<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel shares that the interwebs have this "Adaptive content is a content strategy technique designed to support meaningful, personalized interactions across all channels. "

Matthew_Atkinson: in favour of scheme. I understand the confusion regarding personas. semantics is a big deal for us. proponent of adaptations in AT.

Matthew_Atkinson: not sure we can agree any further than we have already. how would we make progress on the titling?

janina: my point is that whatever is left of the colon. whatever we do that's what's going to remain consistent. after the colon is particular to the content

<CharlesL> Personalization Adaptation: Content Module vs. Personalization Semantics: Content Module vs. Personalization: Content Module

Lionel_Wolberger: straw poll: +1 if you can live with Personalization Semantics: as a prefix

Lionel_Wolberger: will type exact considerations

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 if you can live with "Personalization Semantics" as the two words before the colon

<LisaSeemanKest> -1

<JF> +.75

<becky> 0

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 if you can PREFER with "Personalization Semantics" as the two words before the colon

Lionel_Wolberger: restarting straw poll

<janina> -1

<JF> +.75

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1

<sharon> -1

<CharlesL> 0

<becky> -1

<Matthew_Atkinson> +0.25




<LisaSeemanKest> -1

Lionel_Wolberger: more discussion is needed based on results

<janina> I was going to suggest exactly as Charles has

CharlesL: adaptation, semantics, or nothing? I don't have a huge preference. I like adaptive slightly more than semantics. adaptation is more ubiquitous. semantics has been loaded as a term and includes some things and doesn't

<becky> Personalized Adaptation: <module name> or Adaptation: <module name>

janina: I strongly like using "adaptation" to the left of the colon. it really does vary strongly and pull it back into the realm of accessibility. whatever the technical means that achieves it, the point is to interact with the content. accessibility working for the minority of users

Matthew_Atkinson: would go a bit further to say that the end goal wouldn't lock us into a particular outcome. I also think that the scope is so wide that adaptations is more substantive

Lionel_Wolberger: adaptation is a well-known word and could move personalization into the realm of abilities.

<janina> +1 to Becky's grammar cleanup

<Lionel_Wolberger> hmmmm.... Personalized Adaptation

becky: personalized adaptation or solely adaptation

<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 that "Personalized Adaptation" has a better ring to it, and is still conveying what we're doing. Musing on it.

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 "Personalized Adaptation is what this markup is for"

<CharlesL> Personal Adaptation:?

JF: end of day it's about personalizing or adapting experience

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 when naming things, it helps to keep the goal in mind (e.g., a mission statement)

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1 "Making content adaptable to the market of 'one'"

LisaSeemanKest: one of the challenges will be education about what this is for. getting what it is for across is utmost.

<LisaSeemanKest> enabling the user

<Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel likes taking off suffixes, so Personal is more friendly than Personalization

Matthew_Atkinson: also noted Charles' recommendation of "Personal Adaptation". might misconstrue meaning.

<LisaSeemanKest> enabling adaptaion?

sharon: straw poll on "Personalized Adaptation:"

<Lionel_Wolberger> PEAS - Personalization Enabling Adaptation Semantics

<LisaSeemanKest> i need to step away

<LisaSeemanKest> thanks guys

JF: a collaborative space to make suggestions for titling

JF: lots of ideas here and good to have a record and consider

janina: why not a wiki?

<Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to collaborative decision-making approach via wiki (and we could use a W3C survey for the decision)

janina: we have to finish this conversation before moving to next item in this agenda

RSSAgent make minutes

RRSAgent make minutes

*RRSAgent make minutes

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Maybe present: Lionel_Wolberger, LisaSeemanKest, sharon