Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

11 Aug 2011

See also: IRC log


Peter, Simon, Vivienne, Shadi, Markel, Yeliz
Joshue, Giorgio


Welcome (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments).

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

SH reconfirms the welcome to the editors

MV, GB and JC

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2011Aug/0010.html

GB and JC are sent their regrets

MV has talked to GB before

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

<sharper> is an authoritative report or guide that helps solve a problem

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

<sharper> papers are used to educate readers and help people make decisions

SH: it's a way to educate people
... it's important to have the topic fleshed out so that people have a better idea of they are trying to do
... papers are gonna be ideas or work AND empirical background
... it can be a formal opinion
... how does it fits in the W3C process?

SZ: yes, it's the charge of this group to solicit these kind of contributions
... 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
... W3C workshops...there are Call for Contributions.. we can raise that to white papers

<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

<sharper> MV: would also solicit papers from experts in accessibility metrics - past works, challenges, hint from experience

SZ: I agree with that

<vivienne> do you think something like a practitioner's paper?

SH: I agree

<yeliz> I agree as well

<yeliz> extended abstracts

SH: some papers are can be experience, case studies...

<Peter> I agree, especially with case studies (useful for developers)

agree with two papers length

<vivienne> Case studies are great - a kind of practical research

<yeliz> extended abstracts - short summaries, dense presentations of results

SH: work with good references to previous work rather than position papers

<vivienne> agree

<yeliz> +1

SH: since it's the first one I'd like an engineered and scientifically sound contributions

<Peter> SH: scientific based to get a good rep in the W3C community

SZ: don't disagree with SH

<Peter> (my scribing is redundant - will stop now :)


SH: case studies are really useful

<yeliz> I think one needs to be careful not to make it difficult to write these

<yeliz> so developers do not get discouraged writing them

<yeliz> if it is very formal to write these

SH: the points made in the papers should be backed with scientific evidence

<yeliz> then it would be very diffuclt to get contributions


<Peter> MV: use the wiki or focus a specific topic driven by editors

<vivienne> I've never participated in a webinar, so have no idea how it works

<Peter> MV: wiki topics are specific enough to write a paper

<Peter> SH: how can we take test collections … those sort of things might be useful

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

<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?

<Peter> (sorry turning spell check off now :)

SH: there are some things that are important
... for instance the corpus... and accessibility with regard to conformance and in use
... so that we don't get submission far from the topics we set

<Peter> +1

<yeliz> good idea

<yeliz> +1

<vivienne> +1

<sharper> ACTION: sharper on Send email to solicit specific questions for the call. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - On Send email to solicit specific questions for the call. [on Simon Harper - due 2011-08-18].

<Peter> MV: goal of test is to suggest validity of metrics

<Peter> SZ: what experience/practices in validating metrics - I think it might be a matter of realigning the questions

<yeliz> +1

SH: three editors is reasonable

<Peter> SH: process - planning committee and the editors should be the planning committee

<yeliz> +1

<Peter> +1

<vivienne> sounds good to me


<scribe> ACTION: [markel] to [update wiki] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - [markel]

Committees and Duties. Decide on planning committee for the teleconference seminar (proposal that the editors also be the planning committee).

RESOLUTION: editors will be the planning committee

SZ: scientific committee is involved in the selection of papers
... planning committee has more organisational role
... scientific and planning committee can be the same set of people plus additional reviewers

SH: how many committees we need

it would depend on the number of submission

SZ: if get more papers than expected we have to reduce the number according to the committees criteria
... it should be transparent

SH: I understand...that's why the topics we solicit are very important

SZ: absolutely
... 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
... 10 papers would be surprising
... 8-10 would be great
... Scientific committee could be 4 people
... that would agree on decission

<yeliz> good idea

<yeliz> I don't think we will receive a lot of submissions

SH: agree on editors are scientific committee and would ask for help?

<yeliz> and editors will be the right people to decide about the quality of the submissions

<vivienne> is that putting a lot of work on the editors who are also doing the planning?

<yeliz> but editors can form the scientific committee

<Peter> (just to say, happy to help out if needed)

YY: i don't mind to be on the sci committee
... editors can invite them
... editors would form the committee

<sharper> +1

<Peter> +1

VC: the editors are knowledgeable on people who might review a paper

<yeliz> SH can be the quite member for all the committees :)

SH: i be involved in the SC

<yeliz> +1

<vivienne> sounds good

<yeliz> yes I like that

<Peter> +1

RESOLUTION: editors would be responsible to choose the committee. The chairs are involved in the sci-committee

SZ: this depends on the topic...the first one is a small one

I don't think it's so small...

YY: i agree that committee members should be invited by experts on the area who are editors

SZ: i will try to find appropriate wording

<yeliz> I think generalising this would be good for the other topics coming up

Timeline review - can be refined as needed: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/planning#seminar

<yeliz> +1

SH: agree with the seminar planning?
... we need to create the CFP, the sci committee..
... 1st of november or last week of october to do the seminar

<yeliz> +1

<yeliz> what about week after then?

SH: some people will attend ASSETS http://sigaccess.org/assets11/
... maybe its better first week of Nov

SZ: maybe we need more time to prepare submissions

SH: we can grant more than 2 weeks
... we look for an announcement for the end of Aug
... to get something done for Christmas, so that something is done in 2011
... at that time there will be running another topic in paralallel

<shadi> [week of 7-11 november]

<vivienne> yes, sure

<Peter> +1

SZ: if we do the announcement in the last week in the end of Aug
... next week we could have first draft
... maybe the educational and outreach group would be interested

<vivienne> no, I'm fine

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/News/2011

RESOLVE: we will aim for the end of Aug beginning of Sep for the CFP and a draft for next week

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: [markel] to [update wiki] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: sharper on Send email to solicit specific questions for the call. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-rd-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/08/11 23:15:56 $