W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-personalization-tf@w3.org > February 2022

Re: Naming our Spec(s)

From: Lionel Wolberger <lionel@userway.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:51:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHOHNHdo+y7LT1NitdRC-DVDObcJJ=RLtd4EAUF2hkaoNbm2iw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: public-personalization-tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
I like Personalized Adaptations better, and I wrote to a grammar friend
(the kind of person who loved "Eats Leaves and Shoots") to help me reason
out why.
John, perhaps you can spoil me and restate your strong objection, or point
to the minutes where it is best captured.

I am glad we are moving this discussion forward in email, between meetings.
The Name Game, that process where a team of people seek the best name for
something, benefits from brainstorming. Thanks for your patience as we push
through this.




Lionel Wolberger
COO, UserWay Inc.
lionel@userway.org
UserWay.org <http://userway.org/>
<https://t.sidekickopen90.com/s3t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7kF8cFFTBW4T_qld2zGCwVN8Jbw_8QsRtKVn1vXj1p1kknW16gGBN41Jd6G101?te=W3R5hFj4cm2zwW4hLZp04myBBCf43Wg2w04&si=8000000004174048&pi=5d55c377-d33c-41a7-8f6f-27149236520e>[image:
text]


On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 1:40 AM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Dear John, All:
>
> I've been mulling your suggestion below since you posted this message.
> There's a lot to like in it.
>
> A couple of specific responses below ...
>
> John Foliot writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Coming off of our call today, and I still remain strongly opposed to
> using
> > "Adaptation" in our title, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
> >
> > However, in an attempt to listen carefully and seek some level of
> > conformance, might I suggest an alternative that looks to capture some of
> > what others desire. How does everyone feel about
> >
> Thank you for seeking consensus here. I want to acknowledge that
> specifically.
>
> > "Adaptable Personalization: <title> Module"
> >
> >    - Pro: It suggests that the content CAN BE adapted, but that the spec
> >    does not prescribe how that could or should happen.
> >
> >    - Con: "Adaptability" for some of our proposed attributes is a bit of
> a
> >    stretch in practice.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> Imo, it lacks the key attraction I find in Personalized Adaptations,
> namely that Adaptations strongly suggests accessibility. I had to mull
> whether flipping the two words and tweaking the grammar, as you did, has
> the same effect. Regretably, I don't believe it comes close to
> suggesting accessibility, because it would otherwise serve well.
>
> PS: I have not yet found the specific comment I recall us receiving,
> though I've a good deal of our archive to scroll through still.
> Meanwhile, Michael found the following on Wikipedia which, frankly,
> exposes the same problem in the use of "personalization:"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalization
>
> Best,
>
> Janina
>
> > JF
> >
> > --
> > *John Foliot* |
> > Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
> > W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |
> >
> > "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> > Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka
> (she/her/hers)
> https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures     http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2022 08:53:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 2 February 2022 08:53:03 UTC