W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-personalization-tf@w3.org > October 2018

Re: Personalization thoughts & takeaways from TPAC

From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 19:16:23 +0000
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-personalization-tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <30cc4791-384e-580c-893c-4a8829125b37@tink.uk>

On 31/10/2018 19:12, Janina Sajka wrote:
> My sense is that they were more interested in seeing the vocabulary laid
> out in one coordinated way.

This was certainly the first step WebPlat felt would be useful to complete.

Once that's done, I think it would be a good idea to focus on one of the 
modules, rather than all at once. We'll be able to move more quickly, 
get a better sense of where the challenges are, and (if we need to) 
course correct with the other modules.

Léonie.



> 
> I think naming the actual attribute/mechanism was not so much of
> interest.
> 
> Janina
> 
> John Foliot writes:
>> Hi Lisa,
>>
>> Actually, by my recollection they left things relatively open, but more
>> than one person agreed that an attribute such as @purpose might not meet
>> all of our needs, so we *may* be able to propose 2, or maybe even 3
>> attribute suggestions going forward. For example, in the help modules, it's
>> not so much "purpose" as "type-of-help", so perhaps there we may need a
>> different (second) attribute. Likewise, some of the terms that ultimately
>> take string text may also need an attribute different than @purpose, so
>> there was a realization (at least I think so) that we are ultimately asking
>> for one of three types of personalization info: tokens, string text, or
>> URI's
>>
>> There was however, (at least I felt / heard) an overwhelming rejection of
>> having too many special-use attributes, along with the warning that aui-*
>> attributes would create a collision with other existing content on the web,
>> which I think was also good feedback.
>>
>> Overall I think the reception and comments we received from Web Plat were
>> helpful in confirming (amongst other things) that my late idea of a
>> micro-syntax was actually not a very good idea (but it WAS good that we
>> were able to show Web Plat we were exploring all options, as opposed to
>> showing up with a pre-formed "solution" without any input from them). I
>> think having the opportunity to also socialize our work with Web Plat at
>> this time was also quite beneficial.
>>
>> I will (sadly) not be on Monday's call (Nov. 5th) , as I will be travelling
>> for work, but I look forward to us moving forward.
>>
>> JF
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:02 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the summary John.
>>>
>>> I do not remember Web Plat guidance is to likely for us ask for 1-3 new
>>> attributes -  i thought it was more as needed and as we can defend
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Lisa Seeman
>>>
>>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:53:44 +0300 *John Foliot
>>> <john.foliot@deque.com <john.foliot@deque.com>>* wrote ----
>>>
>>> Relevant Minutes:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2018/10/22-WebPlat-minutes.html#item04
>>> https://www.w3.org/2018/10/24-personalization-minutes
>>>
>>>
>>> Web Plat meeting:
>>>
>>>     - Web Plat guidance is to likely for us ask for 1-3 new attributes
>>>     - They would like to see the taxonomies slightly more mature (we
>>>     should do a concatenated version as well)
>>>     - Terence Eden: HM Gov (UK) are keen to help on this. (Spoke with
>>>     Terrence Thursday - will forward meeting agenda/invite for our next call to
>>>     him)
>>>     - Don't go for a micro-syntax.
>>>     - *Avoid AUI-* attributes.* Concerns because there is a CSS vendor
>>>     that already uses that prefix, my (Brian Kardell) company also uses it,
>>>     probably others.
>>>     - Suggest not prefixing it - there are multiple use cases outside the
>>>     personalisation semantics. Siloing it into accessibility will actually
>>>     reduce uptake in useful scenarios.
>>>
>>>
>>> Plenary Day Presentation:
>>>
>>>     - Correlation with Web Publishing (Ivan Herman) - we should follow up.
>>>     They too are interested in a general purpose attribute (purpose="").
>>>     - The role of Web Annotations in crowd-sourced augmentation should be
>>>     investigated (idioms and expressions - also think about "slang")
>>>     - Q: do we have a longer-range vision statement? Where? Role of
>>>     machine learning and AI?
>>>     - Concern around "name" (comments about "personalization" such as
>>>     "change my font size and remember it" in i.e. Captions)
>>>     - Some people in the captions world worry about the change of subtitle
>>>     text. Different constituents have different views on how it should work. *It
>>>     also has privacy impacts, in case of JavaScript access to that type of
>>>     personalization.*
>>>     - We are going to (we should) ask for a TAG review
>>>
>>> JF
>>> --
>>> *John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
>>> deque.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist
>> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
>> deque.com
> 

-- 
@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2018 19:16:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:57 UTC