W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-personalization-tf@w3.org > November 2021

Re: APA Personalization Task Force Teleconference - 15 Nov Monday 2021 Agenda

From: Matthew Atkinson <matkinson@tpgi.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:51:16 +0000
To: Sharon D Snider <snidersd@us.ibm.com>, "public-personalization-tf@w3.org" <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E195DBA1-6B91-4020-8338-7E6FBB27AAE2@tpgi.com>
Hi all,

Apologies for the delay, but here are the minutes for yesterday's call. You can find them online at https://www.w3.org/2021/11/15-personalization-minutes.html and below in plain text for convenience and ease-of-searching.

Best regards,


Matthew

Present
    CharlesL, janina, Lionel_Wolberger, Matthew_Atkinson, mike_beganyi, Roy

Regrets
    -

Chair
    sharon

Scribe
    janina, Matthew_Atkinson

Contents

1.  Follow-up on i18n issue #144 actions https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144

2.  CR draft that was updated and sent via email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Nov/0015.html

3.  Potential rendering considerations associated with Content Module 1.0
4.  Modules 2.0 issues review and next steps for Help and Support Module 
5.  Ease of Authoring (issue ties in with general A11y and APA)

Meeting minutes

<Lionel_Wolberger> present_+

Follow-up on i18n issue #144 actions https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144


Lionel_Wolberger: I sent the Hebrew version to CharlesL. janina and I talked with Steve Lee and he's ready to go.

janina: We think he'll be working on it this week, and has all the info he needs. We are waiting for a set of index numbers to go with the recipe.

Lionel_Wolberger: Steve is excited to be working on this. Have noticed that, when we explain it, people are on-board with what we're doing, but they do struggle with the same step (i.e. nuances around the justification for the use of the Bliss indices). Maybe we need to address this in an [the? -scribe] Explainer?

CharlesL: I created the EPUB with English and Hebrew. Sent the EPUB + two XHTML files. Need to add the symbols to the XHTML documents and can re-generate the EPUB.

Lionel_Wolberger: Some issues with the EPUB: the Hebrew text is left-aligned.

Lionel_Wolberger: Could we do make any of this interlinear?

Lionel_Wolberger: This was using Total Reader on iPhone.

CharlesL: Tested on Thorium and iBooks.

janina: Think we may want to do some interlinear text: list the ingredients in English, then Hebrew. Then same for the instructions. Doesn't need to be too fancy, but would show we can switch back and forth.

CharlesL: Currently the RTL/LTR is on the document body level. Could try changing. Currently this alternates on a page basis.

janina: This is an interesting constraint.

Lionel_Wolberger: Perhaps this is not a key requirement; if we can't do it, we can keep the current approach.

CharlesL: Will experiment with this some more.

sharon: Next steps?

janina: I'll check in with Steve this week.

CharlesL: The index numbers will need to go into the XHTML file at the word level. Are we expecting Steve to do that, or will we get just the numbers back?

janina: We may need to insert the numbers, but then we have the expertise on that.

CR draft that was updated and sent via email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Nov/0015.html


sharon: ACK Matthew_Atkinson's comments on the thread regarding the HTML-style link. What's the best approach for this?

Matthew_Atkinson: We could include the URL immediately after the text, or use the square bracket notation if required.

sharon: Will send the URL in place on, and see what feedback we get.

sharon: Will make the proposed edits, then send out to everyone.

Potential rendering considerations associated with Content Module 1.0

sharon: Is this the issue originally raised by Nigel on the TPAC breakout call?

janina: Both Nigel and James Nurthen had privacy concerns (exposing the use of AT).

janina: Think we're going to try to go to CR based on the reviews we have; we may need to redo them.

janina: Rendering is going to be an issue and we will need to show implementations dealing with it.

<Zakim> how, you wanted to attend COGA

Matthew_Atkinson: Could've been the rendering issues raised by COGA (which will come up again as we continue talking to them). We should continue talking with COGA as we got a good reception and need to keep the momentum going.

Matthew_Atkinson: We should invite them here too.

Matthew_Atkinson: (Specifically E.A. Draffan, and Jennie [spelling? -scribe] who raised very interesting resources and questions.)

Matthew_Atkinson: Again: Microsoft's similar work in this area sounds quite related (but they aren't working on the mapping).

janina: Absolutely we need to keep in touch with COGA (you can ask Roy to add you to the list), but need to be mindful that the most important thing is to ensure that the Content module is finalised, and work on furthering that as a priority.

janina: The presentation issue is that we understand the user requirement about displaying the symbol above the word—something like ruby, as i18n mentioned. That's an important challenge. We agreed here that this is not a blocker for #144 as it's about directionality, but to go from CR to PR we'll need to see the user-preferred rendering supported.

<Zakim> Lionel, you wanted to comment on how to attend COGA

Lionel_Wolberger: The rendering will be the job of a different partner (i.e. UAs)

janina: We'll need two implementations though.

janina: We (RFC 2119) MUST show two separate implementations. E.g UserWay doing a server-side implementation, plus Firefox, or the original Chrome one. Without these we will not advance to PR.

CharlesL: Don't we also have to have a test showing that it works?

janina: Yes, but the test is that, given some markup, here are two UAs that render it correctly.

CharlesL: In publishing we write a bunch of unit tests for use in different environments.

janina: Will ask Michael for further advice on this soon. This is work that happens in CR; we're still working on getting to CR. Don't think it is going to be too complex for us to meet these requirements. There are ~8. We need to meet each requirement with a couple of different mark-ups and with user rendering (e.g. above the words).

Matthew_Atkinson: We'd like to address the privacy issues; have we been able to seek a GitHub issue on this from either Nigel or James?

janina: We need the input, to address in CR; will work on this.

sharon: Do we need one for the rendering issue too?

janina: Think we will be aware of this, so maybe don't need an issue specificially.

Modules 2.0 issues review and next steps for Help and Support Module 

<sharon> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%222%29+help+module%22


Matthew_Atkinson: COGA has the expertise here. We need use cases, and we need those from COGA.

Matthew_Atkinson: Noting that alittle bit of semantic metadata is our goal

<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Will convey this to COGA on the coordination call tomorrow.

<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: This is exactly what we need from COGA; the user needs and prioritization.

<Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: Module 2 points to the requirements document. Think this was initial work Lisa did. Are we still maintaining the requirements document?

<sharon> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Requirements


<Matthew_Atkinson> janina: We have to show as part of our transition that we've satisfied our requirements.

janina: We can and will discuss these requirements with COGA also.

janina: We aren't locked-in on modules 2 and 3; need input from COGA on direction for these.

<sharon> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html


sharon: ^ This is the latest updated draft with structure/formatting improvements from JF. Is it homework for us to read through this?

janina: Think it's homework for COGA.

sharon: We do have one feature request ("consider semantics for accessible route") for this.

janina: This is an interesting question: what exactly does accessible route mean in a web context; who defines it; don't we need to coordinate with Silver on this, as it's a Silver requirement as well as COGA—maybe that is for them to address.

sharon: Issue filed by Rachael Bradley; JF responded around step indicator usage.

janina: This relates to processes with multiple steps; terminology being used is in flux. Are we responsible for coming up with some metadata for denoting the user's place in the process? Working out the concept of what makes a set of pages.

sharon: Sounds like Silver, COGA, Personalization should be a part of this broader discussion.

janina: Yes, we need to engage with the other groups. This will be a longer conversation.

sharon: Becky ACK'd the issue reported on this and that we'll think about it more in future.

janina: Defining a "view" is not necessarily something that corresponds to a set of web pages. Maybe during the process, you are leaving the footer outside of your conformance report. How do we define this?

janina: This is being worked on by Silver, and is preparatory to identifying which step is which, and how many there are.

sharon: Sounds like we need to ask COGA to review Mod 2 and provide use cases

janina: I will take up use cases and requirements review tih COGA leadership

Ease of Authoring (issue ties in with general A11y and APA)

janina: It's another large issue that we note for now

sharon: We were discussing the importance of authoring. Lionel_Wolberger agrees we will need to revisit it.

Matthew_Atkinson: This relates to the TPAC sessions on the future of accessibility APIs and suggestions e.g. from Joanmarie, about how to expose info to AT. We will also get feedback from developers (which may relate to the attributes issue I raised). This will come out during implementations.

janina: Silver may be involved here too.

sharon: We'll keep these on the TODO list.

sharon: Next week: I'm out and it's Thanksgiving; shall we meet?

[general agreement in the group to skip next week]

-- 
Matthew Tylee Atkinson
--
Senior Accessibility Engineer
TPG Interactive
https://www.tpgi.com

A Vispero Company
https://www.vispero.com

--
This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us immediately.
Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2021 12:51:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 16 November 2021 12:51:36 UTC