Re: APA Personalization Task Force Teleconference - Monday 10 Jan 2022 Agenda

Sharon is off as well.

For those who can meet, the agenda will be:

   - Content Module Implementations Status (Follow-up on i18n issue #144)
   - New names for the modules: Personalization * Module <-- now decide the
   "star"
   - Joint COGA work; What is the role of COGA in curating and bringing our
   next module to CR
   - W3C Registry for Bliss Symbol Lookup Functions

- Lionel




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=cd356727-0829-4549-98bc-d291b61d341f>[image:
text]


On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:20 PM Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
wrote:

> I just got confirmation Benetech will be off next Monday for Martin Luther
> King day.
>
> Thanks
> EOM
> Charles LaPierre
> Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
> Imageshare Product Manager
> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
> Skype: charles_lapierre
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2022, at 8:53 AM, Matthew Atkinson <matkinson@tpgi.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The minutes for today's call are at
> https://www.w3.org/2022/01/10-personalization-minutes.html and repeated
> below for convenience.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Matthew
>
> – DRAFT – Personalization Task Force Teleconference
>
> 10 January 2022
>
> [IRC log.]
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
>    CharlesL, janina, JF, Lionel_Wolberger, Matthew_Atkinson
>
> Regrets
>    Becky
>
> Chair
>    Sharon
>
> Scribe
>    janina, Let's look at long names and -- regretably they're not
> consistent, Matthew_Atkinson, thought we'd come back to this much later --
> after we establish what we're doing with 2 & 3
>
> Contents
>
> 1.  Meeting next Monday? MLK Day?
> 2.  Work on the Rendering plug-in (Matthew)
> 3.  Work on the Rendering plug-in (Matthew)
> 4.  Follow-up on i18n issue #144
> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144
> 5.  A shortname for the modules. The numbering is confusing.
> 6.  Summary of resolutions
>
> Meeting minutes
>
> <janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Key_Resources_and_Links
>
> <janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Key_Resources_and_Links
>
> Meeting next Monday? MLK Day?
>
> janina: Want to honor the holiday, but expect most of us will be here (due
> to covid), and we aim to reach CR as soon as possible, so suggest we meet.
>
> JF: Any news on path to CR?
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Let's address in following items
>
> Work on the Rendering plug-in (Matthew)
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: zakim, close this item
>
> Work on the Rendering plug-in (Matthew)
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Need to have a version of the extension we can
> redistribute
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Need to figure out with Lisa
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Having issues getting email to her
>
> janina: Do we know what the blockage is?
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Extension I have doesn't have a license clause of any
> kind
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: It's already in the web store, but the older version
>
> janina: Expects that there would not be a license distinction from 1.0 to
> 1.1?
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: How can I help
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Not actually sure what version is in the web store
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: we'll need instructions, if it's a file being
> distributed, yes?
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: It's a standard process, but can do. It's easy
>
> Follow-up on i18n issue #144
> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: Checked, and no further response; we are blocked.
>
> janina: Discussed with Michael and Roy; we need to clear this issue.
>
> <CharlesL> I agree lets wait for the rendering before we reach out again.
>
> janina: Important to get the renderer demo sorted if we can before
> contacting them.
>
> A shortname for the modules. The numbering is confusing.
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: As discussed briefly before; the numbering is confusing.
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> the current, Personalization Semantics Content Module
> 1.0
>
> janina: propose module 1 is "Content"
>
> JF: Propose Content Personalization Module
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> The Content Module
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> Content Personalization Module
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization Content Module
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> personalization help and support 1.0
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> personalization tools 1.0
>
> <janina> Matthew_Atkinson: Think all long names should include "Module"
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> Matt suggests that they all should contain the term,
> 'module'
>
> <janina> Matthew_Atkinson: should they all start "Personalization
> Semantics"?
>
> <CharlesL> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/#modules
>
> CharlesL: ^ Explainer
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0:
>
> <JF> +1 to Charles
>
> <janina> CharlesL: Notes Explainer is more consistent; suggests we use
> that format everywhere
>
> <janina> jf: Agree
>
> CharlesL: The Explainer names should be used everywhere.
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization Help and Support Module 1.0
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> Personalization Tools Module 1.0
>
> JF: Not aware of a rule that specifies the names must have a certain
> format.
>
> JF: Current names work quite well.
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Not sure about "Semantics." do we need it in there?
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: Suggest "Content Semantics" if we
> keep the "Semantics"
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: I'm more comfortable without the "Semantics"
>
> <Roy> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-help-1.0/
>
> <Roy> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-tools-1.0/
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Roy: The above are the docs that are currently
> published.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: We can still change the names.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: the URLs aren't consistent with the
> names
>
> <CharlesL> +1 all start with Personalization
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: Do we agree that they should all
> start with "Personalization"?
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> +1
>
> <Roy> +1
>
> +1
>
> <JF> +1
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> The Personalization Task Force will refine the
> Personalization Semantics specification, in consultation with the ARIA
> Working Group. The task force provides a focused forum for this work while
> the Working Group continues its work on ARIA development. Personalization
> Semantics was listed in the ARIA charter as "User Context" but was renamed
> as work progressed.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: The first is "Semantics Content" or
> "Content Semantics"?
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: as JF reminds us, we are bringing
> semantics to the element level
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to the "element-level semantics"; that is a great
> micro-explainer :-)
>
> <CharlesL> Agreed not the name of our TF
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Not sure that "Semantics" is part of our TF
> name.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Not sure that "Semantics" is now important
> enough to put in the title.
>
> <JF> +1 to Charles
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: If we take "Personalization
> (Content|Tools|...) Module"... we are adding semantics to each of these.
> Should be all or nothing.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: we're not creating new tools, but adding
> semantics.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Prefer to keep "Semantics" for all
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: W3C groups says we're
> "Personalization" (<https://www.w3.org/groups/tf/personalization-tf>) but
> home page says both "Personalization Accessibilty" and "Personalization
> Semantics" (<https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/personalization/>)
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to CharlesL
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: "Personalization Semantics ...
> Module" seem accurate to me.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Tend to agree, but not sure where the later modules
> are yet.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> ... Concerned that we are particularly concerned about
> the symbol attribute in the first module.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> ... Think it's purpose that is going to see the most
> adoption, and that is semantic information.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: so +1 to semantics here; not sure if it's
> applicable for the other two modules.
>
> <JF> For example, @numberfree provides alternative text for people who
> prefer content that does not use numerical concepts.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: The URI will stay the URI; doesn't have to
> match the title. We can explain how we bring semantics into help and
> tooling if that's the case. I can live with either, but preference to take
> it out of the title, as we don't fully know how those modules will devleop.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: Is there anything to be gained from
> shorter, or longer titles?
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Having a more descriptive title is better
> than a shorter title IMO.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> ... Looking at the Help module, these are semantics
> that we're adding.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: We may define semantics differently. Some of the
> attributes are about providing additional information (e.g. alt text isn't
> semantics; we have some attributes that are similar). Semantics is more
> like "the purpose of this element is a link". We are adding more
> specificity.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> ... Distraction is semantics, as we're stating relative
> importance, but a link to tools/help is a link. We want to classify it as a
> special type of link.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: I think Lionel_Wolberger's point on shortening the
> name is a useful consideration. There is nuance. Think our names are
> getting too long.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: To summarise: JF doesn't feel there
> is so much in the way of semantics in the later modules.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Correct; it's often more about alternatives.
> Semantics are about the purpose of an element.
>
> <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: A block of numbers with a span that has the
> "numberfree" attribute is providing an alternative restatement of that
> content.
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Find the discussion interesting
>
> <JF> +1 to Matthew
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Suggest that we'll likely agree on Personalization *
> Module
>
> <CharlesL> I think there is both, semantics and alternatives.
> Message-importance for example is more semantics than alternative in the
> tools module.
>
> <janina> +1 to module
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: Do we all agree they should end with "Module"?
>
> +1
>
> <CharlesL> +1 ending with Module
>
> <janina> +1
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: Each will start with "Personalization" and end with
> "Module" (also don't think the URL part needs to include "module"; it does
> already contain "personalization-semantics")
>
> <CharlesL> +1
>
> <janina> +1
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> +1
>
> <JF> +1
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: Do we agree with Personalization * Module in the names?
>
> +1
>
> RESOLUTION: Group agrees to a title scheme "Personalization * Module"
> (with other changes to be discussed).
>
> <janina> -1 to the module in the URI
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: Do we want "module" in the URIs?
>
> -1
>
> <Lionel_Wolberger> -1
>
> <JF> 0
>
> <CharlesL> 0
>
> Matthew_Atkinson: Can this decison on the * part be pushed back?
>
> janina: We need to talk to COGA though, and thus need to not use numbers.
>
> janina: Which is understandable.
>
> janina: Need to be clear as to which module we're talking about, and
> concisely.
>
> janina: We are about to go to CR with the first one, the Content one,
> though.
>
> janina: I'm tending towards pulling "Semantics" out of the titles. We may
> be talking at different levels of strictness.
>
> janina: We can avoid it in the titling, even if we discuss at length in
> the document.
>
> <JF> "Personalization: Content Module", "Personalization: Help and Support
> Module", "Personalization: Tools Module"
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: Agree we need simple and consistent names for these.
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: We don't need shorter names, as long as they're accurate
> names.
>
> <JF> Proposes: "Personalization: Content Module", "Personalization: Help
> and Support Module", "Personalization: Help Module"
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: But in this case, the shorter names help to
> differentiate.
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: Suggest we pick this up next time.
>
> JF: +1 to continuing next time
>
> Lionel_Wolberger: Propose we meet next week; can cancel if need be.
>
> Summary of resolutions
>
> 1.  Group agrees to a title scheme "Personalization * Module" (with other
> changes to be discussed).
>
> Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl
> version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).
>
> Diagnostics
>
> Succeeded: s/should they all start "Personalization"/should they all start
> "Personalization Semantics"?/
>
> Succeeded: s/wih/with
>
> Succeeded: s/to a title schema/to a title scheme/
>
> Succeeded: s/differnt/different
>
> Succeeded: s/Personalization: Help Module/Personalization: Tools Module/
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>