Re: Personalization metadata comparison

I personally think this is great feedback. If the group decides to turn any
of these into actionable items I would be interested in working on some of
them.

Best,
Thaddeus

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:56 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
> Until such time as Sam is formally added to this Task Force (i.e. W3C
> paperwork resolved), he is unable to post to this list. I am sharing his
> thoughts here for the TF to review.
>
> Cheers!
>
> JF
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sam Goto <goto@google.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:29 AM
>
> Regarding the taxonomy, IIUC, in the Adaptable Content Module
> <https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html#values> there
> is a classification of action-based semantics. It would be great if you
> could list somewhere prior art that you've explored and the tradeoffs that
> you considered. FWIW, here are a few things that I'd expect to see in a
> background research section somewhere in your explainer:
>
> - academically: framenet, verbnet, wordnet
> - standards track: activity streams and schema.org actions
> <http://blog.sgo.to/2014/02/a-taxonomy-for-verbs.html>
> - industry applications: opengraph actions
> <https://developers.facebook.com/docs/sharing/opengraph/using-actions>, gmail
> actions
> <https://developers.google.com/gmail/markup/actions/actions-overview>, search
> actions
> <http://blog.sgo.to/2014/09/schemaorg-actions-implementations.html>
>
> These are all more action-oriented and don't cover your other modules
> (e.g. easylang, numfree, etc). There were also designed for a different
> application (activity streams for social applications and schema.org for
> search/conversational assistants, e.g. alexa/siri/home) but seemed like
> somewhat related technologies.
>
> Hope this is being helpful,
>
> Sam
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
> wrote:
>
>> +Lisa
>> I think Lisa might be able to add some more perspective on that as this
>> was moved over from the Cognitive Task Force, so I am not sure of the
>> history to be honest.
>>
>  We could move this discussion to our list if we want to flesh this out
>> Sam some more.
>>
>> Thanks
>> EOM
>>
>> Charles LaPierre
>> Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
>> E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org <charlesl@benetech.org>
>> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
>> Skype: charles_lapierre
>> Phone: 650-600-3301
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Sam Goto <goto@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yep, that list. Wondering what other things you have looked at prior to
>> coming up to that list. It would be good to document that as alternatives
>> considered too.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> As for the Taxonomy question, I believe that is what we are defining in
>>> our list of value pairs in our Personalization modules
>>> <https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html#values> is
>>> it not?  Or do we have to go deeper.
>>> Thanks
>>> EOM
>>>
>>> Charles LaPierre
>>> Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
>>> E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org <charlesl@benetech.org>
>>> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
>>> Skype: charles_lapierre
>>> Phone: 650-600-3301
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Sam Goto <goto@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> + john / charles from the other thread
>>>
>>> That's a really great starring point Michael, thanks for sharing. Really
>>> good job and I think your analysis is spot on!
>>>
>>> I was struggling with a similar problem while annotating forms when I
>>> was working in Search, so I'm really glad to see this trade-off analysis
>>> here. I still don't feel like any of those are great :(
>>>
>>> I think, however, it is worth exploring and adding to your list a lower
>>> level API per the Extensible Web Manifesto
>>> <https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/> and leave the ergonomics to
>>> userland code. Here are a couple of ideas worth comparing and contrasting:
>>>
>>> (1) JSON-LD
>>> (2) A JS API (viz the AOM
>>> <https://github.com/WICG/aom/blob/gh-pages/explainer.md>)
>>>
>>> In both (1) and (2) the approach here is that you (a) detach the
>>> semantics from the DOM/presentation and (b) leave ergonomics (or the color
>>> of the bikeshed) to be explored/innovated from userland code with
>>> polyfills. So, for example, you'd expect user agents to understand these
>>> low-level APIs (1) or (2) and you'd allow/foster/encourage JS libraries to
>>> fill the gap of ergonomics. In time, if you find a specific userland
>>> framework has won and everybody converged to it, you bake that into the
>>> user agent.
>>>
>>> I think that one of the reasons why you may be struggling to find a
>>> silver bullet in your current analysis in because I believe that there is a
>>> fundamental difference between the DOM and the data structure you want to
>>> build. Specifically, when it gets to `position: absolute` everything falls
>>> apart, and, in my experience, a lot of production-level code (e.g. things
>>> that you'd find on gmail.com, yelp.com, hertz.com, opentable.com,
>>> rather than on demos/prototypes) is written in a manner where the DOM
>>> doesn't represent anymore the semantic data structure.
>>>
>>> In Google Search, we have found that the semantic web has taken off when
>>> JSON-LD was introduced: de-coupling the semantic information from the DOM
>>> substantially increased its expressivity, earlier tied to microdata/rdfa.
>>>
>>> Here is an example of what that could look like:
>>>
>>>
>>> <html>
>>>
>>>   <script src="https://jquery.com/a11y.js">
>>>
>>>   <button intent="undo"/>
>>>
>>> </html>
>>>
>>> Which would be equivalent, from a user agent perspective, if the user
>>> had written something along the lines of:
>>>
>>> <html>
>>>
>>>   <button id="1"/>
>>>
>>>   <script>
>>>     document.a11y.actions.push({
>>>       label: "undo",
>>>       id: "1"
>>>     })
>>>   </script>
>>>
>>> </html>
>>>
>>>
>>> The latter is obviously unergonomic, so we wouldn't encourage people to
>>> use it directly, but the cool part about it is that it enables/delegates
>>> the bike-shedding to userland, giving somebody else the ability to come up
>>> with a different serialization, like
>>>
>>>
>>> <html>
>>>
>>>   <script src="https://anotherpolyfill.com/a11y.js">
>>>
>>>   <button itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/UndoAction"/>
>>>
>>> </html>
>>>
>>> Unclear to me if this is any better than what you currently have, but it
>>> seems like a fundamentally different approach worth comparing / contrasting
>>> :)
>>>
>>> I'll think about this deeper and see if there are more alternatives
>>> worth considering.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>> PS when I mentioned earlier about prior-art / alternatives considered I
>>> was hoping I'd be able to find some research in both serialization (what
>>> you have done, "how to embed semantic information") but also the taxonomy
>>> (e.g. "what semantic information to attach", e.g. what does "undo" mean?).
>>> Any chance you would have anything handy for the latter too?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sam - I've taken a pass at populating the pros / cons for different
>>>> approaches to adding personalization semantics to content:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Compar
>>>> ison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content
>>>>
>>>> I tried to describe briefly the approaches I know are on the table and
>>>> consider pros / cons for host languages, authors, and user agents. At the
>>>> bottom is a more generic breakdown of advantages each approach provides,
>>>> but it's very reductionist. It's a start for conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>