IRC log of rd on 2011-08-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:54:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rd
14:54:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-irc
14:54:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:54:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rd
14:54:30 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7394
14:54:30 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_RDWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
14:54:31 [trackbot]
Meeting: Research and Development Working Group Teleconference
14:54:31 [trackbot]
Date: 11 August 2011
14:54:37 [sharper]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:54:59 [sharper]
Chair: Harper_Simon
14:54:59 [sharper]
Agenda+ Welcome (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments).
14:55:00 [sharper]
Agenda+ Welcome to our co-editors in Markel Vigo, Giorgio Brajnik, and Joshue O'Connor, who will edit http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics 'Benchmarking Web Accessibility Metrics' - with specific focus on test collections, metrics that measure accessibility in terms of conformance and accessibility in use, metric properties, and scoring and comparisons of metrics.
14:55:00 [sharper]
Agenda+ Committees and Duties. Decide on planning committee for the teleconference seminar (proposal that the editors also be the planning committee).
14:55:02 [sharper]
Agenda+ Committees and Duties. Decide on scientific committee who will review contributions to the teleconference seminar (proposal of two or three reviewers in the scientific committee in addition to the editors).
14:55:05 [sharper]
Agenda+ Timeline review - can be refined as needed: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/planning#seminar
14:55:07 [sharper]
Agenda+ Timeline Logistics - Next milestone is to create and announce a proper call for papers for this teleconference seminar. Look ahead and select a date for the teleconference seminar.
14:55:12 [sharper]
Agenda+ Any Other Business
14:55:27 [sharper]
zakim, save agenda
14:55:33 [Zakim]
ok, sharper, the agenda has been written to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-agenda.rdf
14:55:36 [sharper]
zakim, take up item 1
14:55:36 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Welcome (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)." taken up [from sharper]
14:55:51 [sharper]
present+ Harper_Simon
14:56:04 [sharper]
present+ Conway_Vivienne
14:56:21 [sharper]
regrets+ O'Connor_Joshue
14:57:04 [sharper]
regrets+ Brajnik_Giorgio
14:57:24 [markel]
markel has joined #rd
14:57:47 [sharper]
zakim, save agenda
14:57:47 [Zakim]
ok, sharper, the agenda has been written to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-agenda.rdf
14:57:54 [sharper]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-minutes.html sharper
14:57:58 [Zakim]
WAI_RDWG()11:00AM has now started
14:58:03 [shadi]
shadi has joined #rd
14:58:05 [Zakim]
+??P31
14:58:23 [sharper]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:59:00 [Peter]
Hi :) Is using Skype an issue? (I'm guessing that +??P31 is from me)
14:59:04 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P31
14:59:14 [shadi]
zakim, code?
14:59:14 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), shadi
14:59:29 [sharper]
present+ Abou-Zahra_Shadi
15:00:04 [Zakim]
+??P36
15:00:06 [Zakim]
+??P39
15:00:07 [yeliz]
yeliz has joined #rd
15:00:09 [sharper]
scribe: Vigo_MarkelScribeNick: sharper
15:00:16 [Zakim]
+ +89206aaaa
15:00:16 [shadi]
zakim, ? is Peter
15:00:21 [Zakim]
sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named '?'
15:00:31 [sharper]
scribe: Vigo_Markel
15:00:31 [sharper]
ScribeNick: markel
15:00:46 [shadi]
zakim, ??p31 is Peter
15:00:56 [Zakim]
+Peter; got it
15:01:08 [shadi]
zakim, ??p36 is Markel
15:01:16 [markel]
present+ mvigo
15:01:17 [Zakim]
+Markel; got it
15:01:21 [Peter]
shadi: yes p31 is me I suspect
15:01:36 [Peter]
I just muted my mic - I suspect it was me who was causing feedback
15:01:50 [Peter]
(will get a headset promise :)
15:01:58 [shadi]
zakim, aaaa is Vivienne
15:02:12 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:16 [Zakim]
+Vivienne; got it
15:02:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter, ??P39, Markel, Vivienne
15:03:08 [shadi]
zakim, ??p39 is Shadi
15:03:21 [Zakim]
+Shadi; got it
15:03:47 [shadi]
agenda?
15:04:44 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/scribes
15:05:31 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:05:31 [markel]
there's a new version of x-lite available
15:05:42 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is Yeliz
15:05:42 [Zakim]
+Yeliz; got it
15:05:43 [markel]
I had to download before I started
15:06:40 [Zakim]
+??P49
15:06:43 [sharper]
zakim, ??P49 is sharper
15:06:48 [Zakim]
+sharper; got it
15:07:04 [yeliz]
zakim, mute me
15:07:05 [Zakim]
Yeliz should now be muted
15:08:31 [yeliz]
I will rejoin from x-lite
15:08:41 [Zakim]
-Yeliz
15:08:55 [sharper]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:08:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-minutes.html sharper
15:09:50 [markel]
zakim, next item
15:09:50 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Welcome to our co-editors in Markel Vigo, Giorgio Brajnik, and Joshue O'Connor, who will edit http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics
15:09:55 [Zakim]
... 'Benchmarking Web Accessibility Metrics' - with specific focus on test collections, metrics that measure accessibility in terms of conformance and accessibility in use, metric
15:10:01 [Zakim]
... properties, and scoring and comparisons of metrics." taken up [from sharper]
15:10:12 [markel]
SH reconfirms the welcome to the editors
15:10:20 [markel]
MV, GB and JC
15:10:26 [Zakim]
+??P55
15:10:27 [shadi]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2011Aug/0010.html
15:10:31 [yeliz]
zakim, ??P55 is yeliz
15:10:31 [Zakim]
+yeliz; got it
15:10:35 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:10:35 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:10:44 [markel]
GB and JC are sent their regrets
15:10:52 [markel]
MV has talked to GB before
15:12:02 [markel]
SH : after the discussion of last week..we talked about collections, metrics that measure accessibility in terms of conformance and accessibility in use, metric properties
15:13:07 [sharper]
is an authoritative report or guide that helps solve a problem
15:13:08 [markel]
SH: it's the 1st time we do this..the contributions we will solicit..are going to be more like white papers instead of position papers
15:13:23 [sharper]
papers are used to educate readers and help people make decisions
15:13:58 [markel]
SH: it's a way to educate people
15:14:30 [markel]
SH: it's important to have the topic fleshed out so that people have a better idea of they are trying to do
15:14:57 [markel]
SH: papers are gonna be ideas or work AND empirical background
15:15:05 [markel]
SH: it can be a formal opinion
15:15:29 [markel]
SH: how does it fits in the W3C process?
15:15:55 [markel]
SZ: yes, it's the charge of this group to solicit these kind of contributions
15:16:41 [markel]
SZ: 1 page position paper would be easier, the higher we set the threshold the more difficult it's going to be for people to contribute
15:17:18 [markel]
SZ: W3C workshops...there are Call for Contributions.. we can raise that to white papers
15:17:53 [Peter]
MV add one thing good we face challenges about accessibility metrics but I would also solicit papers of authors that have been involved in accessibility metrics
15:18:05 [sharper]
MV: would also solicit papers from experts in accessibility metrics - past works, challenges, hint from experience
15:18:14 [shadi]
q+
15:18:31 [markel]
ack shadi
15:19:40 [markel]
SZ: I agree with that
15:19:44 [vivienne]
do you think something like a practitioner's paper?
15:19:45 [markel]
SH: I agree
15:19:46 [yeliz]
I agree as well
15:20:01 [yeliz]
extended abstracts
15:20:04 [markel]
SH: some papers are can be experience, case studies...
15:20:29 [Peter]
I agree, especially with case studies (useful for developers)
15:20:31 [markel]
agree with two papers length
15:20:54 [vivienne]
Case studies are great - a kind of practical research
15:20:55 [yeliz]
extended abstracts - short summaries, dense presentations of results
15:21:04 [markel]
SH: work with good references to previous work rather than position papers
15:21:29 [vivienne]
agree
15:21:33 [yeliz]
+1
15:21:36 [markel]
SH: since it's the first one I'd like an engineered and scientifically sound contributions
15:21:45 [Peter]
SH: scientific based to get a good rep in the W3C community
15:22:07 [markel]
SZ: don't disagree with SH
15:22:14 [Peter]
(my scribing is redundant - will stop now :)
15:22:18 [markel]
:-)
15:22:31 [markel]
SH: case studies are really useful
15:22:39 [yeliz]
I think one needs to be careful not to make it difficult to write these
15:22:51 [yeliz]
so developers do not get discouraged writing them
15:23:14 [yeliz]
if it is very formal to write these
15:23:15 [markel]
SH: the points made in the papers should be backed with scientific evidence
15:23:21 [yeliz]
then it would be very diffuclt to get contributions
15:23:47 [markel]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics
15:25:18 [Peter]
MV: use the wiki or focus a specific topic driven by editors
15:25:46 [vivienne]
I've never participated in a webinar, so have no idea how it works
15:26:06 [Peter]
MV: wiki topics are specific enough to write a paper
15:26:25 [shadi]
q+
15:26:43 [Peter]
SH: how can we take test collections … those sort of things might be useful
15:26:46 [markel]
ack shadi
15:27:00 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics#Open_research_questions_and_ideas
15:27:26 [markel]
q+
15:27:31 [Peter]
SZ: first set of questions are cloister to what I'm thinking of, second half are quite different - how to make use of existing web pages. Validation or?
15:27:49 [Peter]
(sorry turning spell check off now :)
15:28:07 [markel]
ack markel
15:28:22 [markel]
SH: there are some things that are important
15:28:59 [markel]
SH: for instance the corpus... and accessibility with regard to conformance and in use
15:29:21 [markel]
SH: so that we don't get submission far from the topics we set
15:29:38 [Peter]
+1
15:29:38 [yeliz]
good idea
15:29:41 [yeliz]
+1
15:29:46 [vivienne]
+1
15:30:20 [sharper]
Action: sharper on Send email to solicit specific questions for the call.
15:30:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-2 - On Send email to solicit specific questions for the call. [on Simon Harper - due 2011-08-18].
15:31:56 [Peter]
MV: goal of test is to suggest validity of metrics
15:33:04 [Peter]
SZ: what experience/practices in validating metrics - I think it might be a matter of realigning the questions
15:34:27 [yeliz]
+1
15:34:28 [markel]
SH: three editors is reasonable
15:34:30 [Peter]
SH: process - planning committee and the editors should be the planning committee
15:34:31 [yeliz]
+1
15:34:31 [Peter]
+1
15:34:34 [vivienne]
sounds good to me
15:34:42 [markel]
agree
15:35:20 [markel]
Action: [markel] to [update wiki]
15:35:20 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - [markel]
15:35:29 [markel]
zakim, next item
15:35:29 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Committees and Duties. Decide on planning committee for the teleconference seminar (proposal that the editors also be the planning committee)." taken up [from sharper]
15:36:32 [markel]
RESOLVED: editors will be the planning committee
15:36:45 [markel]
zakim, next item
15:36:45 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Committees and Duties. Decide on scientific committee who will review contributions to the teleconference seminar (proposal of two or three reviewers in the scientific
15:36:48 [Zakim]
... committee in addition to the editors)." taken up [from sharper]
15:37:46 [markel]
SZ: scientific committee is involved in the selection of papers
15:38:09 [markel]
SZ: planning committee has more organisational role
15:38:44 [markel]
SZ: scientific and planning committee can be the same set of people plus additional reviewers
15:39:17 [markel]
SH: how many committees we need
15:39:38 [markel]
it would depend on the number of submission
15:40:10 [markel]
SZ: if get more papers than expected we have to reduce the number according to the committees criteria
15:40:20 [markel]
SZ: it should be transparent
15:40:43 [markel]
SH: I understand...that's why the topics we solicit are very important
15:40:48 [markel]
SZ: absolutely
15:41:40 [markel]
SZ: the call is gonna be the key as is going to be the basis also for reviewing...in this topic i can only think about 2 more orgs
15:41:49 [markel]
SZ: 10 papers would be surprising
15:41:58 [markel]
SZ: 8-10 would be great
15:42:18 [markel]
SZ: Scientific committee could be 4 people
15:42:31 [markel]
SZ: that would agree on decission
15:42:43 [yeliz]
good idea
15:42:52 [yeliz]
I don't think we will receive a lot of submissions
15:43:08 [markel]
SH: agree on editors are scientific committee and would ask for help?
15:43:11 [yeliz]
and editors will be the right people to decide about the quality of the submissions
15:43:14 [vivienne]
is that putting a lot of work on the editors who are also doing the planning?
15:43:29 [yeliz]
but editors can form the scientific committee
15:43:34 [Peter]
(just to say, happy to help out if needed)
15:43:56 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:43:56 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:44:08 [markel]
YY: i don't mind to be on the sci committee
15:44:20 [markel]
YY: editors can invite them
15:44:49 [vivienne]
zakim, unmute me
15:44:49 [Zakim]
Vivienne was not muted, vivienne
15:44:55 [markel]
YY: editors would form the committee
15:45:09 [sharper]
+1
15:45:12 [Peter]
+1
15:45:23 [yeliz]
zakim, mute me
15:45:23 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:45:34 [markel]
VC: the editors are knowledgeable on people who might review a paper
15:45:56 [yeliz]
SH can be the quite member for all the committees :)
15:46:08 [markel]
SH: i be involved in the SC
15:46:32 [yeliz]
+1
15:46:34 [vivienne]
sounds good
15:46:35 [yeliz]
yes I like that
15:46:36 [Peter]
+1
15:46:42 [markel]
RESOLVED: editors would be responsible to choose the committee. The chairs are involved in the sci-committee
15:47:12 [markel]
SZ: this depends on the topic...the first one is a small one
15:47:33 [markel]
I don't think it's so small...
15:47:36 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:47:36 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:47:41 [yeliz]
q+
15:48:01 [markel]
ack yeliz
15:49:01 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:49:01 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:49:28 [markel]
YY: i agree that committee members should be invited by experts on the area who are editors
15:49:38 [markel]
SZ: i will check with W3C
15:49:53 [yeliz]
I think generalising this would be good for the other topics coming up
15:49:54 [markel]
zakim, next item
15:49:54 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Timeline review - can be refined as needed: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/planning#seminar" taken up [from sharper]
15:50:01 [shadi]
s/i will check with W3C/i will try to find appropriate wording
15:50:44 [yeliz]
+1
15:50:56 [markel]
SH: agree with the seminar planning?
15:51:32 [markel]
SH: we need to create the CFP, the sci committee..
15:51:52 [markel]
SH: 1st of november or last week of october to do the seminar
15:52:09 [yeliz]
+1
15:52:32 [yeliz]
what about week after then?
15:52:32 [markel]
SH: some people will attend ASSETS http://sigaccess.org/assets11/
15:52:48 [markel]
SH: maybe its better first week of Nov
15:53:24 [Mate]
Mate has joined #rd
15:53:38 [markel]
SZ: maybe we need more time to prepare submissions
15:54:01 [markel]
SH: we can grant more than 2 weeks
15:54:26 [markel]
SH: we look for an announcement for the end of Aug
15:54:45 [markel]
SH: to get something done for Christmas, so that something is done in 2011
15:55:07 [markel]
SH: at that time there will be running another topic in paralallel
15:55:15 [shadi]
[week of 7-11 november]
15:56:11 [vivienne]
yes, sure
15:56:12 [Peter]
+1
15:56:41 [markel]
SZ: if we do the announcement in the last week in the end of Aug
15:56:53 [markel]
SZ: next week we could have first draft
15:57:12 [markel]
SZ: maybe the educational and outreach group would be interested
15:59:02 [vivienne]
no, I'm fine
15:59:02 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/News/2011
15:59:03 [markel]
RESOLVE: we will aim for the end of Aug beginning of Sep for the CFP and a draft for next week
15:59:30 [markel]
great
16:00:06 [Peter]
cheers
16:00:18 [yeliz]
byee
16:00:20 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
16:00:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:00:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:00:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-minutes.html trackbot
16:00:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:00:22 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-actions.rdf :
16:00:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: sharper on Send email to solicit specific questions for the call. [1]
16:00:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-irc#T15-30-20
16:00:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: [markel] to [update wiki] [2]
16:00:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-irc#T15-35-20
16:00:24 [sharper]
bye
16:00:28 [markel]
markel has left #rd
16:00:30 [vivienne]
bye
16:00:32 [Zakim]
-Markel