W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-personalization-tf@w3.org > February 2020

Re: Three Personalization Documents Seeking Review

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:43:44 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxyXyLTL7CvWC0S7Tij_SGi0P=X5KPrbaQV1Bz2bTYL2Wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Chris Leighton <chris.leighton@uwa.edu.au>, Personalization tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Hi Chris,

>> At the same time I struggle with W3Cs use of the word 'conformance'.
Such a clumsy term, infrequently used anywhere that I'm aware of.
> Yes, that a term with particular W3C meaning that continues to undergo
refinement and redefinition. For those of us working on the concept, the
question becomes something like: "If not 'conformance,' than what? How
do you claim you meet a normative specification--or discover precisely
how you do not meet it, so that you might remedy that?"

I'll chime in here to also note that in the context of accessibility work,
like it or not our specifications are now also being used in
regulatory contexts, where clearing marking or defining "success" is a
significant requirement. Thus, from a legal compliance perspective, we need
to indicate both *if* a requirement is being met, and if so by how much
and/or how little, and what (as Janina notes) does the content owner need
to do in terms of remediation: all of our requirements will need at some
level to be testable, measurable, and repeatable - i.e. "can be proven
conformant".

And so, yes, "conformance" is not an oft-used term in engineering circles,
however in legislative and 'risk management' circles it is frequently used.

HTH

JF



On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:42 AM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Hello, Chris:
>
> Chris Leighton writes:
> > Hello Janina,
> >
> > I've just read - https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-1.0/ -
> to gain context for your request.
> >
> > For now I'd like to comment on the word 'personalisation'. Unfortunately
> where I work it is perceived as meaning 'customised content based on what
> is known about the audience member/user session etc'. I hope that the word
> is best understood by your audience as you intend it. I have no idea where
> English language perception of that word most heavily lies in IT circles...
> >
> I understand how people coming to anything labeled "personalization"
> will bring widely divergent expectations . The criticism is fair, imo,
> and it's probably something we should more clearly address in our
> introductory materials.
>
> It is true we've not articulated a global view of what might be meant by
> personalization. However, I would argue we have indeed addressed a
> significant accessibility audience with a technology approach that
> that meets your understanding:  "meaning 'customised content based on what
> is known
> about the audience member/user session."
>
>
> The Module One content is most directly aimed at persons who live with
> cognitive and learning disabilities as articulated over years of work in
> our Cognitive and Learning Disabilities (COGA) Task Force. We believe
> the approach is extensible to address other a11y users, such as were
> previously the subject of an earlier W3C/WAI effort in our Indie-UI
> Working Group, which was active from 2012-2015.
>
> If the approaches we embark on in these documents prove viable and
> extensible, we'll learn whether (or not) they extend out far enough to
> address non-disability concerns. We always seek solutions with the
> potential to serve as electronic curb cuts. However, addressing
> previously unmet COGA requirements is a worthy goal, imo, even if the
> full extent of the term "personalization" might suggest each and every
> person on the web to some.
>
> > At the same time I struggle with W3Cs use of the word 'conformance'.
> Such a clumsy term, infrequently used anywhere that I'm aware of. I
> commented on that to W3C previously.
> >
> Yes, that a term with particular W3C meaning that continues to undergo
> refinement and redefinition. For those of us working on the concept, the
> question becomes something like: "If not 'conformance,' than what? How
> do you claim you meet a normative specification--or discover precisely
> how you do not meet it, so that you might remedy that?"
>
> Got a better suggestion? That's not an idle request!
>
> Best,
>
> Janina
>
> > I will later contribute again where possible.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
> > Sent: Friday, 31 January 2020 1:00 AM
> > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > Cc: Personalization tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
> > Subject: Three Personalization Documents Seeking Review
> >
> > Colleagues:
> >
> > The W3C's personalization<
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/>
> > Semantics Task Force of the Accessible Platform Architectures (APA)
> Working Group is requesting a second wide review of our Personalization
> Semantics module 1 (Adaptable Content) and the accompanying Explainer
> document. We request your comments by Wednesday 10 March.
> >
> > We aim to make web content adaptable for users who function more
> effectively when content is presented to them in alternative modalities -
> including people with cognitive & learning disabilities.
> >
> > The Explainer is available here:
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-personalization-semantics-1.0-20200127/
> >
> > The Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0 specification (Updated
> Draft) is available here:
> >
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-personalization-semantics-content-1.0-20200127/
> >
> > We especially request continued feedback from:
> >
> > *     Those involved in WCAG 2.2 development, because we believe our
> >       normative specification provides conformance techniques to
> proposed Success Criteria for WCAG 2.2, such as Essential Controls.
> >
> > *     Those involved with ACC symbols accessibility and inclusion so we
> can
> >       continue to refine and optimize our  specifications to better
> accommodate their scenarios.
> >
> > We would expressly draw your attention to Sec. 3.1 of our specification
> as it is particularly critical. If you have time only for a partial review,
> please review Sec. 3.1 available directly at this web link:
> >
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-personalization-semantics-content-1.0-20200127/#action-explanation
> >
> > Our current drafts incorporate feedback from earlier drafts in our
> activity.
> > For that reason alone we need to request your second look at our
> specification--because much has changed.
> >
> > We are also publishing for review and comment a First Working Draft
> (FPWD) of a requirements document available here:
> >
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-personalization-semantics-requirements-1.0-20200130/
> >
> >  Please note that the Personalization Semantics Content Module is
> intended to become a W3C recommendation eventually, while the other two
> documents, the Explainer and the Requirements document will become W3C
> Notes.
> >
> > We appreciate your time reviewing our specification and accompanying
> documents afresh.  Responses to this wide review call will determine
> whether we are ready to advance the Module One specification to W3C
> Candidate Recommendation
> > (CR) status. It will also help us determine whether we are ready for
> certain required internal W3C quality reviews.
> >
> > To comment,
> > <a href="https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/new">
> >       file an issue in the <abbr title="World Wide Web
> Consortium">W3C</abbr> personalization semantics GitHub repository</a>.
> > If this is not feasible, send email to
> > <a href="mailto:public-personalization-tf@w3.org">
> public-personalization-tf@w3.org</a>
> > (<a href="
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/
> ">archives</a>).
> >                Comments are requested by <strong>10 March 2020</strong>.
> > In-progress updates to the document may be viewed in the
> >                <a href="https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/
> ">
> >                       publicly visible editors' draft</a>.
> >
> > Thanking you in advance,
> >
> > Janina Sajka, Chair
> > Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group
> >
> > Lisa Seeman & Charles LaPierre, Co-Facilitators Personalization
> Semantics Task Force
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka
> >
> > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:     http://a11y.org
> >
> > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures      http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures        http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
>
>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
Received on Monday, 3 February 2020 18:44:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 3 February 2020 18:44:26 UTC