Minutes from 17 May

Minutes from the Personalization Task Force teleconference of 17 May are
provided below as text.

Hypertext available at:

https://www.w3.org/2021/05/17-personalization-minutes.html


   W3C

                                                                                                            – DRAFT –
                                                                                            Personalization Task Force Teleconference

17 May 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          becky, CharlesL, janina, JF, Lionel_Wolberger, LisaSeemanKest, Matthew_Atkinson, Roy, sharon

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Sharon

   Scribe
          janina

Contents

    1. Review updates to the explainer - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/181
    2. i18n issue #144 (waiting for a response back) - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144
    3. Open Content module 1 issues https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%221%29+content+module%22
    4. Summary of action items

Meeting minutes

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

  Review updates to the explainer - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/181

   Sharon: Notes this is the PR ...

   Sharon: Asks about the various expected edits, what remains?

   JF: Believe only remaining is bold/italic vs strong/emphasis

   http://www.w3.org/respec/

   CharlesL: Notes preference in W3C for strong/emphasis

   johnNotes CSS styling is still available

   JF: The semantic includes visual, but can be styled

   CharlesL: Notes screen reader settings used by some users

   Sharon: Will look at PR for any gotchyas and approve or inform the list

   JF: Notes also more recent updates? Are those included?

   [discussion re whether the PR has the latest and greatest}

   <janina> s/\}/]/

   <Matthew_Atkinson> These are JF's latest changes https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/181/files/876929e665c6042ecca329ae4033dac404abe11f..ee0e82229ad30642d512441c75ab6930acf8b08e

   <JF> The latest is here: https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/181/commits/ee0e82229ad30642d512441c75ab6930acf8b08e

   <Matthew_Atkinson> For reference, the date was the 13th of this month.

  i18n issue #144 (waiting for a response back) - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144

   Sharon: Notes this is dangling for i18n

   Sharon: No response?

   becky: looks at history

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to say we've waited lon genough

   janina: Suggests misunderstanding not cleared via github, we should ask for mtg as needed to clear

   jf: Agrees we should move on

   janina: Will ping addison

  Open Content module 1 issues https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%221%29+content+module%22

   Sharon: Seems destination/action/purpose -- are we good?

   Sharon: Where to start?

   Sharon: Are we still looking at possibly combining these?

   janina: My recollection is we didn't actually decide

   CharlesL: Have update on issue 128

   CharlesL: Tried to reach out, but email bounced

   Sharon: Close?

   CharlesL: Yes, but will add comment. Perhaps the github handle may get action?

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to propose a path forward

   jf: Believe right question posed. We need to make decision on the 3 attributes vs one

   Sharon: OK, Charles will ping via github and close

   jf: Notes 3 attribs proposed for some time; combining coming awfuly late

   jf: Concerned with the rewrite job

   Matthew_Atkinson: Suggest we might want to look at some other items and delay this one ...

   Matthew_Atkinson: Not adverse to delaying this one while we mull it

   Matthew_Atkinson: We do have other discrete items, and we've made progress on some

   Matthew_Atkinson: We're not quite done with conflict resolution

   Matthew_Atkinson: Some of these others may be easier to resolve

   Sharon: Link?

   <Matthew_Atkinson> Latest question on-list: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021May/0009.html

   Matthew_Atkinson: Suggests various distinctions ...

   Matthew_Atkinson: expectation of link vs button, etc

   Matthew_Atkinson: Believe it's simpler to allow help to be either link or button

   Matthew_Atkinson: some destinations might be actions

   Matthew_Atkinson: the notion "opens inpage dialog" seems reasonable, but could be more than, might be several

   jf: Agree we could shorten ....

   jf: point is what serves target audience best?

   jf: believe we need to define both

   becky: Concerned developers were confused having same name in two places. Is that better documentation?

   <JF> to also talk about augmenting with icons

   janina: Concerned we may be over thinking mechanism vs what user needs

   jf: we had concerned an onscreen icon

   jf: but we may have multiple help icons -- different terms for each is cleanest

   becky: Believe Janina provided justification for just using purpose

   becky: Developer will understand user's need

   Matthew_Atkinson: interesting discussion ...

   Matthew_Atkinson: Believe adding icon may be indeed simplest; but maybe we only need one

   Matthew_Atkinson: if we had a way of working out distination vs action ...

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to also speak to 'teaching' AI

   jf: believe goal is also teachin AI systems

   jf: so specificity wins out

   jf: Not overly concerned if same icon is used for either

   Matthew_Atkinson: Generally agree with explicit is better than implicit ....

   Matthew_Atkinson: should we consider the rules we give to a validator?

   Matthew_Atkinson: Sometimes both would be valid; but other times not. How do we guide?

   jf: Perhaps an Ed Note asking responses during CR

   jf: Concerned we may already have devs working from the draft

   Matthew_Atkinson: Ask one detail ...

   Matthew_Atkinson: Is the example currently legit? Where both can be used?

   jf: Believe not explicitly forbidden; multiple attribs not forbidden

   jf: Notes authors might do that and we're just trying to augment authoring

   CharlesL: +1 to Ed Note

   CharlesL: My only concern with 3 is that we have to ask for 3 from WHAT

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to suggest that Matthew and I pull together a 'whitepaper' with the outstanding questions and possible ways forward, and reference that in the Ed. Note

   janina: Notes we're replacing data- specifically, with a reserved prefix

   jf: Prefers to ask for the attribs without the prefix first

   janina: That's another conversation and one that's strategic -- possibly above the TF pay grade

   <JF> draft proposal: a) add Ed. Note to 1st module, b) Matthew and JF pull together a whitepaper that outlines the issues and possible ways forward

   <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to working with JF on white paper to support Editor's Note about possible ways forward wrt attributes.

   <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to it being a wiki page (thanks Janina)

   <becky> +1

   jf: Clarifies that we need a destination for our Ed Note to point for all the pros and cons

   <Sharon> +1

   jf: Could be a wiki

   <Roy> +1

   becky: Are we agreed on this one?

   +1

   <JF> +1

   <Sharon> +1

   Sharon: Appears so, and where it lives to be decided

   jf: Will get it started

   <Zakim> becky, you wanted to ask about resolving the name of the action help value

   Action: JF to start the process of working with Matthew to collect pros and cons, and possible places to host that 'discussion'

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Start the process of working with matthew to collect pros and cons, and possible places to host that 'discussion' [on John Foliot - due 2021-05-24].

   becky: Want to get back to original q? action-help -- are we OK with same name for different values

   <JF> action="opens_dialog" sort of maps to "hasPopup"

   becky: Appears opening in page dialog is too specific -- as we currently have it

   becky: Do we need more generic? Or allow two values

   becky: There was confusion when they were the same, so we broke them out

   jf: Values?

   Becky: yes

   [discussion on what we actually mean ...]

   jf: On screen text may say "help," but tech may be different

   becky: should look at the others where there may be overlap

   jf: I propose Matthew and I will consider that ...

   matthew: Noting I agree with what's being said, thinking distinction may be helpful to some users; but we also want to encourage creative competition among implementing user agents

   Sharon: So we have a plan ...

   Sharon: Anything else?

Summary of action items

    1. JF to start the process of working with Matthew to collect pros and cons, and possible places to host that 'discussion'


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).


-- 

Janina Sajka
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Monday, 17 May 2021 15:06:45 UTC