IRC log of rd on 2011-09-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:26:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rd
14:26:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:26:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:26:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rd
14:26:31 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7394
14:26:31 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_RDWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 34 minutes
14:26:32 [trackbot]
Meeting: Research and Development Working Group Teleconference
14:26:32 [trackbot]
Date: 22 September 2011
14:26:36 [shadi]
Agenda+ Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)
14:26:36 [shadi]
Agenda+ CFP Distribution (update and collation of lists already sent to and other perspective venues)
14:26:36 [shadi]
Agenda+ Fixing the Judging and Selection Criteria -
14:26:36 [shadi]
Agenda+ Any Other Business
14:26:44 [shadi]
chair: Shadi
14:26:48 [shadi]
regrets: Simon
14:49:04 [Joshue]
14:49:22 [shadi]
yes, in 10 minutes
14:52:40 [Zakim]
WAI_RDWG()11:00AM has now started
14:52:47 [Zakim]
14:54:05 [Mario]
Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:54:05 [Zakim]
+Mario; got it
14:57:06 [pthiessen]
pthiessen has joined #rd
14:57:16 [Zakim]
14:57:31 [Joshue]
zakim, ??P25 is Joshue
14:57:31 [Zakim]
+Joshue; got it
14:58:29 [pthiessen]
pthiessen has joined #rd
14:59:34 [vivienne]
vivienne has joined #rd
15:00:20 [Zakim]
15:00:27 [shadi]
zakim, ??p14 is me
15:00:27 [Zakim]
+shadi; got it
15:00:34 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mario, Joshue, shadi
15:00:41 [Mario]
15:00:52 [giorgio]
giorgio has joined #rd
15:01:10 [Zakim]
15:01:16 [Zakim]
15:01:24 [vivienne]
zakim, ??p37 is me
15:01:24 [Zakim]
+vivienne; got it
15:01:40 [markel]
markel has joined #rd
15:01:41 [Peter]
Zakim, ??P34 is me
15:01:45 [Zakim]
+Peter; got it
15:02:02 [Peter]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:02 [Zakim]
Peter should now be muted
15:02:13 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mario, Joshue, shadi, Peter (muted), vivienne
15:02:22 [Zakim]
15:02:23 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:02:23 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:02:32 [Zakim]
15:02:37 [Joshue]
zakim, mute me
15:02:37 [Zakim]
Joshue should now be muted
15:03:01 [Mario]
zakim, mute me
15:03:01 [Zakim]
Mario should now be muted
15:03:16 [Joshue]
zakim, unmute me
15:03:16 [Zakim]
Joshue should no longer be muted
15:03:54 [Zakim]
+ +1.361.279.aaaa
15:04:07 [Mate]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:04:07 [Zakim]
+Mate; got it
15:04:46 [yeliz]
yeliz has joined #rd
15:04:48 [shadi]
zakim, ??p15 is Markel
15:04:52 [Zakim]
+Markel; got it
15:05:00 [shadi]
zakim, ??p21 is Giorgio
15:05:06 [Zakim]
+Giorgio; got it
15:05:07 [Joshue]
zakim, mute me
15:05:10 [Zakim]
Joshue should now be muted
15:05:21 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mario (muted), Joshue (muted), shadi, Peter (muted), vivienne (muted), Markel, Giorgio, Mate
15:05:55 [markel]
I'll do that
15:05:56 [Peter]
(I can scribe)
15:06:10 [shadi]
scribe: Joshue
15:06:12 [Joshue]
scribe: Joshue
15:06:22 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 1
15:06:22 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)" taken up [from shadi]
15:06:41 [shadi]
15:06:48 [Joshue]
SAZ: Are there any agenda requests?
15:06:51 [Zakim]
15:06:57 [yeliz]
zakim, ??P11 is yeliz
15:06:57 [Zakim]
+yeliz; got it
15:07:08 [Mate]
zakim, mute me
15:07:08 [Zakim]
Mate should now be muted
15:07:08 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:07:09 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:07:28 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
15:07:29 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "CFP Distribution (update and collation of lists already sent to and other perspective venues)" taken up [from shadi]
15:08:01 [Joshue]
SAZ: The CFP was out, it has been sent to several groups and others have forwarded - which is great.
15:08:23 [Joshue]
SAZ: What more can we do to promote it? I have gotten requests for clarification
15:08:30 [Joshue]
SAZ: What promotion has been going on?
15:08:42 [Joshue]
SAZ: Has anyone been circulating it?
15:08:43 [markel]
15:08:48 [markel]
15:08:49 [vivienne]
I sent it through our university
15:08:52 [giorgio]
15:08:54 [shadi]
ack markel
15:09:12 [Joshue]
Markel: I did send it to people I have been following who are involved in a11y metrics.
15:09:34 [Joshue]
Markel: I gave them the link, sent to 8 different research groups.
15:09:37 [Joshue]
SAZ: Great
15:09:40 [shadi]
ack giorgio
15:09:48 [Peter]
15:09:49 [Joshue]
Giorgio: I sent it to three or four other people.
15:10:08 [giorgio]
one list that comes to my mind i webaim
15:10:08 [Joshue]
JOC: I also send it to about 6 academic colleagues.
15:10:10 [Peter]
ack me
15:10:25 [Joshue]
SAZ: Are there lists etc that we could send it to?
15:10:25 [Peter]
oh no
15:10:30 [Joshue]
zakim, umute Peter
15:10:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'umute Peter', Joshue
15:10:37 [yeliz]
I wonder if it could also be published in the newsletters?
15:10:39 [Peter]
hmm irc I suppose
15:10:47 [yeliz]
for example, SIGACCESS or SIGWEB newsletters?
15:10:49 [shadi]
zakim, who is muted?
15:10:49 [Zakim]
I see Mario, Joshue, vivienne, Mate, yeliz muted
15:10:50 [Peter]
WIll just type for now :)
15:11:21 [yeliz]
or usability newsletters
15:11:29 [Peter]
I was planning to forward the CFP to OS mailing groups like mozilla accessibility, screen reader groups etc.
15:11:30 [yeliz]
or may be we don't have enough time?
15:11:33 [yeliz]
yes, some of them
15:11:34 [Joshue]
SAZ: +1 to usablity newsletter
15:11:34 [markel]
Did we get anything at the WAI-IG list?
15:11:39 [Joshue]
SAZ: Do they have CFPs?
15:11:41 [Peter]
Zakim, mute me
15:11:41 [Zakim]
Peter should now be muted
15:11:57 [vivienne]
what about groups in LinkedIn?
15:12:07 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:12:07 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:12:17 [Joshue]
SAZ: We should avoid double contacting.
15:12:25 [shadi]
q+ peter markel
15:12:30 [markel]
15:12:33 [Joshue]
Yeliz: I get regular newsletter from usability news .com
15:12:37 [Peter]
15:12:48 [Joshue]
Yeliz: The editor can be contacted about the call?
15:12:52 [Joshue]
SAZ: Great
15:13:01 [Joshue]
Yeliz: Or HCI Int
15:13:25 [yeliz]
15:13:25 [Joshue]
Yeliz: The editor can be contacted about the call also and they upcoming events, announcements etc.
15:13:54 [yeliz]
15:14:14 [Joshue]
SAZ: For everyone in the group, if you do have a mailing list etc that you think interested then please check with me first.
15:14:28 [yeliz]
sigaccess -
15:14:35 [giorgio]
I would suggst the mailing list of
15:14:35 [Peter]
Would it be easier to put the groups on a wiki? (avoid extra work for Shadi)
15:14:46 [Joshue]
SAZ: I just want to check we don't crosspost.
15:14:48 [Peter]
+1 webaim
15:14:50 [markel]
+1 Peter
15:14:52 [yeliz]
sigweb -
15:15:03 [Joshue]
SAZ: I was thinking about that Peter, yes. Why not?
15:15:42 [Joshue]
SAZ: So do insert list into wiki, so we don't crosspost etc
15:15:54 [markel]
DBWorld -
15:16:22 [Joshue]
Yeliz: If you are ok I can send a mail to a couple of groups SIGWEB, HCI Int etc
15:16:24 [Joshue]
SAZ: Great
15:16:47 [markel]
Interaction design -
15:16:57 [Joshue]
SAZ: I'll put up that wiki page, so Yeliz please add to wiki.
15:17:00 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:17:00 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:17:14 [markel]
yes, I'll do that
15:17:16 [Mario]
I have to check with Klaus to send it also to ICCHP authors.
15:17:37 [Joshue]
SAZ: So please check wiki if you are going to send.
15:17:51 [yeliz]
I can also post it on the W4A Linkedin group and also Facebook group?
15:18:02 [markel]
oh, I see...
15:18:07 [markel]
yes you are right
15:18:07 [Joshue]
SAZ: Yes, this message went to the WAI-IG list
15:18:19 [Joshue]
SAZ: Thats the announcement you should use.
15:18:36 [yeliz]
15:18:40 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:18:40 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:18:40 [Joshue]
SAZ: Try to avoid writing your own.
15:18:59 [Peter]
15:19:01 [Joshue]
Yeliz: I can also post to W4A, on their FB page etc
15:19:03 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:19:03 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:19:16 [markel]
I think SIGCHI does also have a list for the CFP
15:19:21 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:19:21 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:19:24 [Joshue]
SAZ: I don't know if relevant but happy to
15:19:33 [Joshue]
Yeliz: WebAIM newsletter?
15:19:40 [Peter]
Hmm perhaps your right Shadi - will focus more on research groups.
15:19:48 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:19:48 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:19:49 [Joshue]
SAZ: Ok, I'll check that myself.
15:20:21 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:20:21 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:20:25 [yeliz]
15:21:00 [Joshue]
SAZ: I have sent it to the Commission.
15:21:15 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:21:15 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:21:16 [Joshue]
Yeliz: It would be good to inform the eInclusion.
15:21:22 [Joshue]
SAZ: I'll do that.
15:21:42 [Peter]
(Jutta at Inclusive Design Research Centre)
15:21:58 [Peter]
(oh ok :)
15:22:00 [Joshue]
SAZ: I have sent it there also.
15:22:19 [Joshue]
SAZ: Lets move on.
15:22:30 [Joshue]
zakim, next agendum item
15:22:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'next agendum item', Joshue
15:22:39 [Joshue]
zakim, unmute me
15:22:39 [Zakim]
Joshue should no longer be muted
15:22:45 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
15:22:45 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, shadi
15:22:50 [shadi]
15:22:52 [Joshue]
zakim, mute me
15:22:52 [Zakim]
Joshue should now be muted
15:22:57 [shadi]
q- y
15:23:00 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
15:23:00 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Fixing the Judging and Selection Criteria -" taken up [from shadi]
15:23:32 [shadi]
15:23:43 [markel]
alright, sorry
15:23:49 [shadi]
scribe: Markel
15:23:52 [markel]
i'm on it
15:25:11 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:25:11 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:25:14 [markel]
SAZ: regarding Yeliz's email on the criteria...we don't expect many contributions..we need high quality submissions and need to justify rejections...some of you are knowledgeable in organising conferences
15:25:45 [markel]
YY: the CFP says that each submission will be reviewed by three reviewers
15:26:11 [markel]
YY: it is necessary to establish the criteria even if we don't expect many submission
15:26:19 [Joshue]
+1 to Yeliz. I liked your ideas that you outlined in your mail. Feedback is important either way. Whether successful or not.
15:26:27 [markel]
YY: the SC should have the same criteria
15:26:55 [giorgio]
15:26:56 [markel]
YY: novelty is difficult one because we said that already submited papers are welcomed
15:27:03 [markel]
SAZ: any though?
15:27:19 [Joshue]
15:27:24 [shadi]
[[criteria including relevance, clarity, soundness and power of the arguments, generality of results/claims, novelty]]
15:27:51 [markel]
YY: what would be the impact? soundness is an important one but we don't one to scare people
15:27:55 [shadi]
ack g
15:27:57 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:27:57 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:28:23 [markel]
GB: the criteria in the CFP are general enough to judge the papers-
15:28:24 [markel]
15:28:33 [markel]
impact could also be included
15:28:55 [Peter]
+impact perhaps easiest to measure
15:29:19 [markel]
GB: it is difficult to measure clarity or novelty without seen the submissions...maybe these decisions have to be taken after reviews
15:29:23 [Joshue]
Yes, totally agree with Giorgio.
15:29:39 [markel]
GB: let's discuss about forms and tools for reviewers
15:29:51 [Joshue]
Have we a scoring mechanism/
15:30:22 [Mario]
15:30:26 [markel]
GB: we need to say which criteria are important and what we mean by that criteria
15:30:40 [markel]
GB: I was pointing to the latter aspect
15:30:45 [markel]
SAZ: both are necessary
15:30:48 [Joshue]
One is weighting and one is the core value of the paper.
15:30:59 [markel]
GB: I agree but the second one is more difficult
15:31:14 [yeliz]
15:31:24 [yeliz]
15:31:25 [yeliz]
15:31:27 [yeliz]
new one?
15:31:32 [Joshue]
15:31:40 [markel]
SAZ: impact, significance, relevance will get more clear once we have the definitions
15:31:41 [giorgio]
why don't we try to formulate 1-sentence descriptions of these criteria?
15:31:44 [Mario]
ack me
15:31:51 [vivienne]
I don't see anything on the academic authenticity?
15:32:21 [markel]
Mario: GB's idea is a good one, I've reviewed for ICCHP for years but I've never seen such thing
15:32:26 [Zakim]
15:32:44 [markel]
Mario: we need for the reviewer to put their
15:32:52 [markel]
Mario: rationale?
15:33:20 [markel]
SAZ: should we start with a wiki page or should we discuss it now?
15:33:36 [giorgio]
15:33:38 [markel]
SAZ: we have to emphasize that other groups could benefit from this
15:33:48 [markel]
Mario: not now in the call
15:33:58 [markel]
GB: I'd go for a wiki page
15:34:02 [vivienne]
I agree with a wiki page, would allow us all to add things as we go through it
15:34:18 [markel]
GB: based on my experience reviewing papers
15:34:27 [yeliz]
I agree with Giorgio
15:34:45 [markel]
GB: the rationale is to improve the reliability and consistency of reviewers when evaluating a paper
15:34:46 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:34:46 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:34:59 [markel]
SAZ: if we do it publicly we can get more input
15:35:07 [Mario]
zakim, mute me
15:35:14 [Zakim]
Mario should now be muted
15:35:23 [giorgio]
if shadi could create an empty page for that I'll keep working on it.
15:35:26 [giorgio]
15:35:46 [giorgio]
15:35:51 [markel]
SAZ: let's list the CFP criteria and look at definitions; can it be done by wednesday morning?
15:36:07 [markel]
SAZ: YY, is that ok?
15:36:25 [markel]
YY: I can also contribute adding definitions or some question for each criteria
15:36:40 [markel]
YY: defining is difficult but useful for authors and reviewers
15:36:59 [markel]
YY: is good for authors to get feedback so that they can improve their submission
15:37:34 [markel]
YY: my only doubt is again regarding to last week discussion with Shawn
15:37:53 [markel]
YY: about academia vs industry
15:38:01 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:38:01 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:38:05 [giorgio]
so we need people of this group that are notacademians to review our proposals.
15:38:23 [markel]
SAZ: there are two aspects (1) criteria and (2) how we define them
15:39:03 [markel]
SAZ: GB made a good point
15:39:03 [yeliz]
I agree
15:39:05 [giorgio]
15:39:07 [giorgio]
15:39:11 [yeliz]
to get a different perspective, its important
15:39:21 [markel]
we need academic reviewers but knowledgeable on the topic
15:39:25 [shadi]
ack g
15:39:51 [yeliz]
too academic
15:39:52 [yeliz]
15:39:57 [markel]
GB: I meant that in the wiki page should be reviewed by people who don't call themselves from academia
15:40:16 [yeliz]
I agree with Giorgio
15:40:17 [yeliz]
15:40:18 [yeliz]
15:40:23 [markel]
GB: YY, SH, GB and MV are from the same family
15:40:43 [markel]
GB: but SAZ, SLH's point of view in necessary
15:40:52 [markel]
SAZ: let's have a balance SC
15:41:17 [yeliz]
yes, that's why I think it was good to have Shawn
15:41:18 [yeliz]
15:41:24 [giorgio]
15:41:33 [shadi]
ack g
15:41:56 [Mario]
very good idea.
15:41:57 [markel]
GB: to improve the CFP and the symposium we need to know how we will get feedback from participants
15:42:05 [yeliz]
15:42:13 [markel]
GB: where participants are presenters and attendants
15:42:20 [Peter]
+1 feedback form - consistency could be improved
15:43:02 [markel]
SAZ: we have lots of things: define criteria, review from non-academic people, review form, etc.great ideas
15:43:07 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:43:07 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:43:09 [markel]
SAZ: other thoughs?
15:44:01 [markel]
YY: one last thing about rebuttal some conferences...SH really likes it....after the review authors are allowed to submit his comments back to the SC
15:44:08 [giorgio]
15:44:29 [shadi]
ack g
15:44:31 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:44:31 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:44:46 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:44:46 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:44:47 [markel]
GB: we don't have enough time
15:44:48 [yeliz]
15:44:53 [markel]
I agrre
15:44:56 [markel]
15:45:37 [shadi]
ack y
15:45:45 [markel]
GB: we are asking 1000 word abstracts and the most typical answer we can get from authors is that there was no enough room for explanations
15:45:55 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:45:55 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:46:07 [markel]
YY: I agree with GB, maybe it'd be useful for subsequent seminars
15:46:46 [yeliz]
for the first one, I agree
15:46:48 [yeliz]
15:47:02 [yeliz]
we can have in mind for the following ones
15:47:19 [yeliz]
I agree Shadi
15:47:25 [giorgio]
15:47:51 [markel]
SAZ: any other thoughT?
15:48:29 [markel]
SAZ: another question related to the participation..agreement was that accepted papers authors will have a bit of time
15:48:33 [markel]
not more than 10min
15:48:48 [markel]
SAZ: should have read the papers in advance
15:49:18 [markel]
SAZ: there will be a panel : weminar chairs and some open questions
15:49:36 [markel]
SAZ: all depending on the number of papers and questions...
15:50:06 [markel]
SAZ: there will be physical limitations
15:50:15 [giorgio]
wha kind of capcity can we handle?
15:50:16 [markel]
SAZ: of how many people we can accept
15:50:36 [markel]
SAZ: I have to check that
15:50:43 [giorgio]
15:50:43 [markel]
SAZ: I remember 150
15:50:57 [markel]
SAZ: members of the RDWG should have a seat
15:51:26 [shadi]
ack g
15:51:36 [markel]
SAZ: if we wanna do some other criteria such as first come first serve basis
15:51:57 [Zakim]
15:51:58 [Mario]
15:52:02 [markel]
GB: I agree on RDWG members, accepted papers + authors of rejected papers
15:52:09 [markel]
SAZ: good point
15:52:23 [vivienne]
sounds good
15:52:47 [markel]
SAZ: do we need invitees?
15:53:00 [giorgio]
why not?
15:53:03 [Peter]
15:53:06 [markel]
SAZ: relevant people that don't have time to submit
15:53:12 [vivienne]
15:53:12 [markel]
I agree with that
15:53:34 [yeliz]
zakim, unmute yeliz
15:53:34 [Zakim]
yeliz should no longer be muted
15:53:41 [markel]
SAZ: once we have that we can open to first come served
15:53:58 [markel]
YY: we can give priority from...research groups
15:54:10 [markel]
what about people from industry?
15:54:14 [yeliz]
for example, yahoo accessibility group, Google accessibility group
15:54:40 [markel]
SAZ: somebody from WCAG...back to the SC
15:54:41 [yeliz]
zakim, mute yeliz
15:54:41 [Zakim]
yeliz should now be muted
15:54:42 [giorgio]
15:55:01 [shadi]
ack g
15:55:16 [markel]
GB: I'd be happy if Google, Yahoo or Amazon join but perhaps we have to be clear on the criteria for invitations.
15:55:37 [markel]
GB: Inviting sb who is highly cited is a good idea
15:55:51 [markel]
GB: excluding or missing groups might be a problem
15:56:10 [Peter]
put criteria on the wiki? :)
15:56:12 [giorgio]
who and why
15:56:19 [markel]
SAZ: we need a criteria for this too: who do we invite, who has priority?
15:56:23 [Mario]
Let's also think about these criteria in the Wiki.
15:56:38 [markel]
SAZ: with 150 people we can accomodate most people
15:57:13 [markel]
SAZ: people have to think who do we want on the phone
15:57:16 [giorgio]
the real question is how many reservd seat are there, and how are they assigned.
15:57:34 [markel]
SAZ: one criteria could be sb how could add value
15:58:12 [markel]
SAZ: anything else to raise?
15:58:35 [markel]
SAZ: thank you very much, I'll set the wiki pages
15:59:04 [markel]
SAZ: we have an agenda for next week
15:59:08 [vivienne]
good night all
15:59:10 [yeliz]
15:59:11 [giorgio]
ok. thanks and bye
15:59:11 [Peter]
15:59:13 [markel]
15:59:14 [Mario]
Thanks and bye!
15:59:19 [Zakim]
15:59:20 [markel]
15:59:22 [vivienne]
vivienne has left #rd
15:59:24 [Zakim]
15:59:26 [giorgio]
15:59:27 [Zakim]
15:59:29 [markel]
markel has left #rd
15:59:30 [Zakim]
15:59:38 [Zakim]
15:59:44 [Zakim]
16:01:18 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
16:01:18 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:01:18 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Mario, Joshue, shadi, vivienne, Peter, +1.361.279.aaaa, Mate, Markel, Giorgio, yeliz
16:01:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:01:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:01:20 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items