Re: What issues are part of Mondays discussion

Hi Sam,

For my own edification and so I can make a more meaningful contribution to
the group. Can you let me know if the following would be an appropriate use
case based on your definition? Although I believe this section is on hold
this is what I had as a use case for Step Indicator:


*Step Indicator*
Users may have differences in both working and short-term memory. For some
users the duration of working memory may be shorter than the average which
is between 10-15 seconds. For some users the duration of short-term memory
may be shorter than the average which is between 15-30 seconds.

Many processes consist of a sequence of separate steps or actions which
must be performed by a user to complete a process or workflow. Users must
be able to track completed tasks in order to identify their location in a
process. In addition, a user must be able to navigate to completed tasks to
make modifications or corrections.

-----------

Is this an example of what you would expect to see for a use case?

Alternatively, outside the W3C, I am writing a research paper on trauma
related disorders and eLearning user interfaces. Given this, only as an
example and with the assumption that the research was accurate and robust,
if this research paper was mapped to one of the vocabulary items would this
be considered a valid and complete use case or is there additional
information you would expect to find?

Best,
Thaddeus

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Sam Goto <goto@google.com> wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
>   Apologies for the delay, I was at TC39 in Seattle this week.
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:37 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sam (and everyone else)
>> On Monday we are hoping to discuss how to put the vocabularies into the
>> page. I was looking over the issues and want to check we are on the same
>> page about what needs to be included (other then the options already at
>> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/
>> Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content)
>>
>> please let me know if any are missing.
>>
>> #73 <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/73> this is
>> about using a javascript / json library as a way to pull in the semantics.
>> I would include this in  the discussion on Monday. Do you agree?
>>
>>
>>
> Yep, that should probably be included.
>
> This is a good summary of other alternative design choices too:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/77
>
>
>> --items that are very important but not directly  part of Mondays
>> discussion (I think)
>>
>> #72 - this is a call for better background (I added some more background
>> there). I Assume you do not think this is part of the discussion on Monday
>> - Is that correct? (it is still really important that we fully address )
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure one can objectively/concretely compare alternative design
> choices without understanding concretely what are the design requirements
> and expected use cases. Without the concrete use cases to judge against, it
> seems like one would have a fairly abstract / hypothetical discussion about
> the tradeoffs.
>
>
>>
>> #76 <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/76> - this
>> is about different layering and architectures.  some of the suggestions is
>> exactly what the implemetions so far have done. some of your examples are
>> exactly what the user implementations are doing   such as using  css at
>> https://a11y-resources.com/developer/adaptable-ui-personalisation or an
>> json triggered extension at http://accessibility.athena
>> -ict.com/personlization.shtml
>> Relevant wiki pages are https://github.com/w3c/per
>> sonalization-semantics/wiki/Implementations-of-Semantics and
>> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/
>> wiki/Architectural-issues (we should populate it)
>> I also added a comment about why it needs to be declaried by the author
>> and what needs to be done by the user agent.
>> I assume you do not think this is part of the discussion on Monday - Is
>> that correct?
>>
>
> I do believe #76 should be part of Monday's discussion. Specifically, it
> is unclear to me what needs to be done further beyond #76 and I believe my
> lack of understanding might be because I don't have a clear vision of what
> #72 looks like (whereas maybe you do? in which case, it should be easy to
> write down?).
>
>
>>
>> #74 <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/74> taxonomy
>> alternatives - this is really important to look at when discussion what we
>> need to define in the vocabulary.  But I assume you do not think this is
>> part of the discussion on Monday - Is that correct?
>>
>
> Yep, I think #74 can be looked at once the bigger layering question is
> finalized. I agree that we can leave that for a further discussion.
>
>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>