Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

01 Sep 2011

See also: IRC log


Shawn, Shadi, Markel, Giorgio, Simon, Vivienne
Rui, Joshue, Yeliz


Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)

shadi: should we look at questions first, then the Call?

SH: go back and look at seminar and participants after

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

mv: summarize last week's meeting. Looking at Wiki, Giogio edited as per last meeting and made some clarifications. Shadi made a major contribution to make the call more clear and readable - thanks. There are some concerns editors have been discussing.
... maybe we could be more open when it comes to talking about guidelines - currently too tied to guidelines. We want to welcome other approaches such as people using national guidelines. Reference to authoring tool guidelines and content guidelines.
... giogio also made changes

giorgio: after discussing with markel & josh made some more changes to clarify examples. Made a few small changes in objectives and added a sentence in the first part of the objectives. Authors might be wanting to know what kind of contribvutions they would make to research community if they prepare a paper. Edited kind of questins we want papers to address and put in 6 bulleted points. Added

a sentence at end regarding review procedure.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to respond on promoting fragmentation and to respond on guidelines focus

sa: did not have a chance to look through changes previously. Looks okay to me so far. Want feel conceptually are the changes I made preferred? Tried to add more headings, more descriptive, do people agree with that approach?

<markel> Shadi, I think it is very good as it is, very concise

looks good to me

<giorgio> I think we agreed with all of them

sa: focus on guidelines: ok with focusing on wcag in which case we should go back and think about the web or web accessibility metrics?
... reason I want to be clear about that - we need right expectations - website vs the web
... there is a complex interaction and we need to say what part we are focusing on

<giorgio> I'll be happy to measure accessibiluty of websites

sa: there is a ? in the documentation we circulated
... first point - open to national guidelines or accessibility guidelines - we should not turn away someone who has been developing metrics for the Italian version, section 508, etc. Same approach which could apply to wcag as well. Need to be careful of expression - not encouraging people to develop develop different guidelines
... derivatives can cause fragmentation and we dont' want to encourage that

<giorgio> I am not able to identify any sentence in ou cfp that promotes fragmentation. are you?

sa: let's see how we can open the call up more than it is

giorgio: no I'm not suggestion any more changes. Should we take out the reference to the tools guidelines? (did I get this right?)
... added section 508 as an example, but should not promote fragmentation

all: please let me know if I miss something

<giorgio> ok, we can 'derivative of '

<giorgio> i meant we can add it

sa: was reacting to comments from editors, but if you're okay with the description there so far, that's fine

mv: I don't think tht including some other guidelines is a problem - its enriching. One of the goals of this first exercise we re doing is to maybe see which kind of set of guidelines is more valuable or sensible when it comes to measuring accessibility

<giorgio> yes, I fully agree with markel

<giorgio> no, I dont agree with such a generalization

sa: I think you've jumped - comparing validity of entire sets of guidelines against each other. We need to be open to look outside, that's okay. In this particular call, we need to look at people who are developing metrics (maybe not even just accessibility guidelines) - need to be open, but need to be very careful not to miss some of the impact that fragmentation has on accessibililty
... fragmentation of standards is hurting people with disability

<markel> Shadi, I didn't mean we should compare the validity of guidelines

giorgio: I don't agree with you when you say that we might be wanting to look at metrics in general. Need to be focussed on accessibility of the website - need to be open. Read through wcag, section 508, other data from IBM Japan social ingfrastructure. We want to know about them and what works in that situation.

<sharper> +1 to giorgio's point

<shadi> [[Are there any low-level metrics like page size, number of images without alt tag or similar that are predictors of the accessibility of a web page]]

sa: fair point, I agree.
... low level metrics - have seen some work done for search engine where they categorize web pages according to the number of images and number of texts. There might be some things we can learn from there. To the initial topic, I think tehcnically we're all on the same page. I may have a higher level of sensitivity about how we message talking about guidelines.
... mainly I believe fragmentaiton hurts accessibility

giorgio: exasmple about low level metrics etc. are all ways that could be used to define accessibility. Some submissions would br low-level of or less relevance to webinar

mv: our perspectives or fragmentation may be different. How we can find the good points of accessing guidelines. As a way of improving standards, that's my perspective

sa: maybe the metrics will be a way of doing follow-on work down the road

<giorgio> definitely further down the road

<markel> agree with Simon

sh: regards fragmentation discussion - fragmentaton may not be seen such a good thing. could be an extension of the guidelines. Consider social needs in different countries. It might also be that the web is a heterogenous system, therefore these extensions to wcag guidelines may provide a new way to see them. We don't want to stifle people discussing different approaches that might b useful in

their real world.

sa: we need to have further discussions on this to make sure we're all in synch. Some of the discussion may be idealistic.

sa: the idea of benefitting from a decentralized system, learn from extensions and so on - sound good but I've yet to see an example. Those I know are changing the meaning, because we misunderstand the guidelines. This can harm accessibility more than it benefits

<markel> let's not promote fragmentation

sa: japan , one of the guidliens for the jis follows wcag most closely. We have learned from them about japanese characters which has made wcag better. I've yet to see an extension of wcag tht is positive in the way you were saying - all have been harmful fragmentation. For our topic, its a matter of messaging, not promoting the negative part of fragmentation This might actually be a topic in


sh: yes, a topic in itself re: section 508 is a national guideline for us
... shelve this for the next discussion
... how we we feel about this call and the suggested changes giorgia, markel, shadi and josh have been proposed?

<markel> IMO we could go ahead

sh: are they reasonable and we can agree on them:

go ahead

<giorgio> ok

sa: changes are all fine so far. I may have one or two minor edits. There is a type in the first paragraph - "would not be visible".

sh: agree?

<sharper> +1

mv: agree - also remove the comments between the brackets

sa: the focus - I could do that after the call - do a light edit and then can people look at it by the end of the day tomorrow and we can announce it early next week?

<giorgio> ok for me; I can do it tonight or early tomorrow morning

sh: I'm not here, so I'm okay with the editors making that decision

<markel> i'm fine with that too

sh: need to agree on dates directly and whether people would need more time - Thursdya 8 December for actual teleconference, stop people contributing by 17 November, or 10 November? We need to sort these dates out though

sa: I am hopeful we might be able to announce early next week

<markel> early next week at the latest

sa: also need to think of time between notification and the conference itself

<markel> +1

sa: beginning of Novembr for paper deadline

<giorgio> ok

<markel> Is the weminar date fixed?

sh: yes, gives 7 weeks or so to write 1000 words or so - a better schedule

sa: deadline 8 November?

<giorgio> me too

mv: deadline 1 November

Can everyone type in their dates as I'm losing the plot!

conference 8 December?

<giorgio> ok for me

sh: 8 December for webinar, 1 November for deadline, 17 November for people to be informed

<giorgio> simon's sugestions are fine with me

sh: midnight stanard time or any times

mv: is there time between deadline and 17 November?

<giorgio> but we're talking of 1000 words papers

sh: for 1000 words it should be okay

mv: maybe papers - sorry Markel didn't hear you?

sh: if there were more major problems, we wouldn't have accepted them

<giorgio> I'm not sure whetehr it's a good idea to put up papers that are drafts

sa: at w3c workshops we have position papers first

<giorgio> but I don't think this is an issue we need to solve now

sh: there might be typographical problems, point to other papers within the workshop, this is a different and unique thing
... next one will be a lot easier
... next time we'll have shawn's changes etc

sa: need people to make changes before teleconference, but put initial drafts we accept up so people can see them

sh: we can't get people to make the changes after the conference
... are we all okay on the dates?

<sharper> RESOLVED: We all agree on this content (with very light typo changes)

sa: scientific committee need to allocate a lot of time between 1-17 November

<pthiessen> Back and looking through the logs now :)

sa: we have 3 teleconference between this perod to make positions etc

<sharper> RESOLVED: Deadline 01 Nov, Notification 17 Nov, Webinar 08 Dec


<pthiessen> +1 wiki changes


Any Other Business - Shawn's Notes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2011Aug/0032.html

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2011Aug/0032.html

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to prioritize what to call them

Shawn: regarding comnents on email. Is the first step, what to call these?
... workshop, symposium, research seminar, research workshop etc. talked about pros and cons - top are symposium or research seminar

<shadi> [[ Webinar | Workshop | Teleconference Seminar | Seminar | Colloqium | Research Seminar]]

sa: webinar is used often in context of online training, might be a bit distracting. workshop may be closest match, but can b confusing to w3c audience. Other ideas eg research seminar

<markel> colloquium sounds quite informal

<shadi> [[ Webinar | Workshop | Teleconference Seminar | Symposium | Colloqium | Research Seminar]]

sh: likes research seminar

<giorgio> ok with me: research seminar

<markel> research seminar is ok

I'm okay with research seminar

shawn: how much do you want to focus on research? It would be good to pick one term now that we can use for future events. If in the future you might want to use something that's not so much research. Does seminar indicate that there will be discussion?

sh: symposium?

<kourou> seminar indicates training...

shawn: symposium doesn't bring up much t me - others?

sh: symposiium too formal or academic?

<giorgio> why did we rule workshop out?

I'm not sure at all - just not workshop

<shawn> [shawn *really* likes workshop generally, but it has different meaning in W3C ]

sa: workshop used in w3c heavily to mean a full or two day event

<markel> Research seminar is okay for me

<markel> i would not remove "research"

sa: if we announce workshop the typical w3c audience will be confused

<giorgio> research workshop?

<markel> as we are the RDWG

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/events.html

<markel> :-D

<giorgio> good point, sh.

sh: I think symposium is a good one due to definition

<sharper> symposium |simˈpōzēəm|

<sharper> noun ( pl. -sia |-zēə| or -siums )

<sharper> a conference or meeting to discuss a particular subject.

<sharper> • a collection of essays or papers on a particular subject by a number of contributors.

<sharper> • a drinking party or convivial discussion, esp. as held in ancient Greece after a banquet (and notable as the title of a work by Plato).

<sharper> ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a drinking party): via Latin from Greek sumposion, from sumpotēs ‘fellow drinker,’ from sun- ‘together’ + potēs ‘drinker.’

wine is good!

<markel> research banquet

<shawn> leaning toward symposium

<giorgio> good

okay with that

mv: research seminar

<markel> research seminar

sa: another argument for symposium - good to have something we can explain to the membership - not completely new but backed by w3c process documents

<pthiessen> +1 research seminar

sh: okay with that

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/events.html

sa: MV you can file an objection?

mv: okay

shawn: regarding announcements - who can participate, do only those who have accepted paper that can participate?

<giorgio> se should also see how many decent submissions we get

sh: someone who has a definite position which is supported by science or engineering - well-found positions with supporting references as opposed to somethng that is pulled from thin air

shawen: not research but well supported. Can others particpate besides those who submit papers?

<kourou> I think it should be open to others...

<markel> I think should be open to anybody

sh: anyone can participate
... anyone, like an audience at a seminar

I'm not sure that's clear from the call for papers?

sa: would there be more listeners than presenters?

sh: at this point, we don't restrict access and see how it runs for the future. Its an unknown quantity

shawn: how much discussion vs how much prsentation. could have someone join and derail the discussion with tangents

sh: that's up to whoever's chairing that - up to them to modify and maintain the discussion or sanciton that person

giorgio: depends on how many contributions, submission we get. Depends also on technology for symposium, wold it be talking, or would there be some wy for sharing. Would shape ow many people we want on the conference

sa: the technology - same as we're using now for the teleconference - irc and phones, slides made availabe in advance. Speaker says 'next slide' and everyone advances on ther own rather than on the screen. Have looked at other thngs in the past, but there is always some kind of deficiency which becomes complx and expensive. Happy to look at it for future events, but for now the default is to

<giorgio> ok, thanks

use what we're using right now

sh: capacity - maybe not on a Thursday afternoon? - because of competing html5 group. We have quite a number of lines we can have. If I set the first week of December systems people can give the ideal dayof the week. put it on the mailing list in the coming days.

<giorgio> wait: this is the cfp, notthe conference annoucement

sa: need to add to the call also that we will be accepting on the first come/first served. If you provide a paper and its accepted you have aplace for sure. If you just want to listen in, depends on how many places available - first come/first served

<markel> sure, the CFP is okay as it is

<kourou> maybe a registration system is needed for participation of listeners...

shawn: worth having 2 different things?

<markel> then we can move into "call for participation"

<giorgio> yes it wuld be useful for exampl to provide the program, papers, timings

sa: just one sentence sayng 'observers maya be accepted on a first come/ first served basis'

<giorgio> ok for the sentence

<giorgio> yes

<markel> yes

sh: continue discussion next week?

yes please

sh: shadi can you chair next week?
... postpone next week's meeting?

shawn: 15th better

<giorgio> ok

sh: will send out notice to postpone next week's meeting to 15th

<pthiessen> ok

no problem - fingers got a good workout

<shadi> :)

sh: meet in 2 weeks.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/09/01 20:52:40 $