Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

21 Jul 2011

See also: IRC log


Shadi, Mate, Yeliz, Joshue, Giorgio
Charles, Vivienne, Simon, Markel, Klaus



shadi: we wil take turns in scribing
... the list is alphabetical here but we will take turns: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/scribes
... if you cannot scribe or don't want to scribe, please let me know and I will take you off from the list

<Joshue> The new SIP thing is working pretty well.

shadi: if you experience any problems with the telecon. system, let us know, we want to improve the system
... anybody is aware of accessible SIP clients, let me know
... haven't been successful, let me know if you find an accessible client

shadi: they all seem to have different accessibility issue
... moving on to the next topic

Revisit research topics - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki

shadi: Simon has emailed the steps
... this week would be used to add/expand topics
... so that we can take a candidate topic so that we can explore that topic
... some people have been active on the wiki
... new topics added and some expanded
... not so much activity though
... what do you think? do you have any observation

Joshua: difficult to say, we need to get a feel,
... I am interested in finding out topics that I am not currently involved with
... hoping to chat, discuss people who are not on the list

shadi: Part of the issues is that people are waiting

SAZ: We need to get people out of their comfort zone and use the wiki
... I encourage others to start using the wiki as much as poss.

SAZ: Simples things can be added
... I have added a line or two here and there, the webpage sampling.

Its a little chicken or egg

SAZ: How can we get people to talk?
... These are problems with international group.

Mate: We could pick a topic every week, talk about that etc.

<giorgio> we need to discuss each issue first

<giorgio> find overlaps between them

<giorgio> and only then in the end decide to focus for 2 months or so on the first one

<Joshue> +1 to discussing and seeing overlaps

SAZ: we need to discuss and find the overlaps, and only in the end decide to focus on one topic more closely
... I think Simon had a different hope,

<Joshue> If I was to pick one I'd suggest Metrics?

<Joshue> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics

SAZ: but as the Joshua says the wiki is empty and people don't know each other
... lets start looking at a topic

and Joshua is suggesting one now

Joshua: this ties in really well with something that I will do later
... if SAZ you want to focus on something else, then we can focus on someting else

SAZ: I don't want to be biased though, as you know I am interested in evaluation
... what do others think? Shall we look at this topic and looks for the overlap with other topics

<Joshue> Yes

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics

SAZ: lets look at this topic first
... what does it contain?

<giorgio> if needed I could tell something more about the experiments markel and I did

Joshua: can I put somebody's name here who is interested in this?

SAZ: ofcourse
... you are welcome to add a small parag about you
... ofcourse you can link directly to your home page as well
... Joshua, what's your view on this topic?

Joshua: I think the area of metrics, evaluation benchmarking, I think I am thinking about case studies, etc, I am wondering as well the user experience, and usability testing
... interested in fleshing out a framework
... I am also interested in usability metrics to support inclusive design

SAZ: that's interesting, but I undertsood to measuring the level accessibility
... but I guess you are talking about the perceived benefits, etc...

Joshua: I guess where I am coming is from assessing accessibility technically

GB: the experiments we have done with Markel

<giorgio> i think we should first fous on measuring acc

<giorgio> then on measuring effects

<giorgio> that's because if metrics foracc are not valid, everything else

YY: I agree with Giorgio

<giorgio> would be random or so

<Joshue> Yes

<Joshue> I think the benefits would be an extra topic

SAZ: measuring accessibility is crucial, and then measuring the benefits would come later

<giorgio> yes, i agree with joshua

Joshua: benefit, business case, etc I think is another topics

SAZ: the way I add a page, I search for a topic and if it is not there then I add it

Joshua: I can add a new page talking about the benefit assessment

SAZ: two sides of measurement: validity (how accessible is the content) vs. the benefits of making a page accessible (certain level)
... those kind of research, they have a certain scope
... the majority of the topics suggested, fall into the category of midterm range topics
... some of them are even short term
... what is missing for sure is long term topics
... things for instance, gesture
... how is the change of interaction affecting the accessibility, requirements and paradigms
... this is definitely missing, and I know most of you have experience in that
... please fill free to add topics that do not have the same tone in the current topics

Joshua: as far as I know Chaals is interested in this and there is a group working on this

SAZ: there is also another group looking into this
... this group should have to watch for overlaps with other groups, do some complementary stuff
... and make sure that there is no repeatition
... gesture is one of the ideas

YY: affective computing

SAZ: please go ahead and add more
... topics that will become hot topics in future
... any other topic that would be interesting to look at?
... Lets look at web metrics
... Joshua mentioned that this is focused on automated testing
... even if we say measuring accessibility that does not say automated
... we can break them into: automated + non-automated
... what do you think about the non-automated part

I annot hear well

<giorgio> the fundamental pbm see with acc metrics is how to make it sure that they measure what we mean (validity)

<giorgio> the pbm is the same with auto &manual metrics

Mate: Its difficult

SAZ: objectively measurable and non-obejctively
... for example, how good is alt text?
... same problem again with automatic and manual
... Objective vs subjective, very different specturms
... when we talk about measuring accessibility, it's one of the things that will always come up
... any other observations from this topic?

Mate: accessibility is depends on the audiance
... if thee site is targeting Hungarians, then the accessibility is related how many people can access it?
... It would be good to give some ratings, say for example you cannot reach certain percentage of people
... it would be good to have these in guidelines

SAZ: the idea of guidelines, is based on universal design, not to focus on certain user groups
... we do not want to miss any group, for example people who are deaf-blind are not well represented

<Mate> I agree

SAZ: we don't have time to dwell into this
... measuring by numbers vs. measuring by people
... Giorgio's work is relevant to this -- Barrier Walkthrough method
... That goes into aggregation and impact of the accessibility barriers

<giorgio> I'm a bit confused: I thought that we needed to discuss topics/issues that would promote research/experiments in an area, rather than (just) proposing new research ideas.

SAZ: we need to still have a measurement

<giorgio> In the proposed entry in the wiki we suggested to set up a sort of competition between research gorups

<giorgio> to foster results, standardized results,etc

<giorgio> where we say "... thesame type of competition" ...

SAZ: Giorgio I am not sure which topic you are referring to

<giorgio> to anyone

SAZ: response to Giorgio's comment...Are you asking specifically about this topic or ?
... we really need research topics that will advance accessibility
... I really encourage people to add whatever they want to get a momentum
... then we can choose the ones which will have higher impact
... to make sure that the whole thing is moving fastre

<giorgio> so the output would be a researc agenda to give to researchers worldwide

SAZ: don't want to overclaim what we want to do in this group
... we certainly want to contribute to the research agenda
... but don't want to overclaim
... we need bigger impact topics
... we need to have a good combination of short, mid and long term researchers

so that we would be able to choose from them

<giorgio> yes it does

SAZ: does that answer your question Giorgio?

Selection of first topic

SAZ: Lets come back to the final agenda item
... we were discussing selecting a topic to focus on
... this will be done in parallel to wiki
... we will continue to add wiki, expand topics, etc
... we want to have a menu card with lots of selection
... but we need to start somewhere
... The idea is to start a web based survey
... today is the deadline for adding a topic
... with this survey you will be asked to rate the topics

SAZ: you will be able to say, combine them, focus on partial topic
... hopefully next week we will have the first topics
... so we will have a first webinar and working group note
... that is the plan for the upcoming week
... any question? comments?
... please do add to the wiki
... don't right now be too hesitant with the ideas you have
... think about the topics that will have high impact and will advance the accessibility
... the ideas which are important will buble up and the rest will stay there anyway
... wait for the survey and Simon will send the survey this week

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/07/21 16:54:43 $