See also: IRC log
SH: We can put this to be and the editors can discuss this.
SH: If we can resolve this now, that we are happy how the selection criteria are going. For now its done.
SAZ: Did editorial edits.
<sharper> RESOLVED: All happy with the selection criteria for now, can be opened up by editors later if they wish.
SH: We are at a point when we are waiting for
papers etc
... SO to be productive, what do we want to do next?
... Should we look at new topics, notes etc after this one?
<Mario-Batusic> No.
SH: I am open to suggestions, please share
thoughts, have we missed anything etc?
... Shadi, do we need any more discussion?
... Can we link the issue tracker to the calendar?
SAZ: Am still looking at that.
SH: I can't think of much more we need to do
until we get papers.
... Any one else with ideas for topics etc?
<vconway> I think we should leave this until papers come in and would love to look at new topics
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf
SAZ: We can start looking ahead, the eval method
TF was attempted to look at existing methods etc.
... I am wondering where to collect this info, in the wiki or seperate?
... Thoughts?
SH: I have been thinkin about this.
... We have the benchmarking metrics, and the eval tools. Could this be spread
out to web a11y in general?
<Mario-Batusic> Do you mean for the next simposium?
SH: This should be a part of the wiki, but we may want to combine topics.
SAZ: Thats fine, the eval WG will be looking at it. It may be good to keep that in the R&D space
VC: Besides the current topics, there are others such as accreditation methods and look at where the paths cross and can work together.
SH: Good idea
SAZ: I'll start a page on the wiki, to collect existing Web site eval methods and allow other WG to browse parts etc.
SH: Cross pollination!
<sharper> http://www.w3.org/community/cssacc/
<vconway> Is this related to the LinkedIn group?
SH: Discssion on new WG, CSS Access group. There
may be things here that are of interest to us.
... Any other ideas?
<vconway> I'm particularly interested in accreditation methods
<shadi> JOC: discussion about user testing evaluation
<shadi> ...exploration of user testing methodology may be interesting
<shadi> ...don't want to use the term "metrics" too restrictively
<vconway> I'd love to look at the user testing issue as well
<vconway> Its on the Wiki page
<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/User_Evaluation_Methods_for_Web_Accessibility_Evaluation
SH: Any other ideas?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/community/
SAZ: Regarding the CSS group, the structural
stuff will be interesting, there were talks about Microformats etc - there are
the technical aspects, and also the community groups and the business groups to
get people together to make suggestions etc
... When we are writing our notes etc this is something to consider to get
groups to talk together
... SteveF etc are trying to use this as way of talking and prestandardize
something.
... I want to raise awareness
SH: Please feel free to populate the wiki, there is also Digital TV which would be interesting
JOC: +1 to Digital TV
SAZ: I see you added the multitouch stuff.
SH: The UAAG wg thought this was interesting
stuff to look at.
... Ok, we are done with this topic for this week.
... AOB
MB: would be got to develop more materials about
WAI-ARIA
... very important as many applications are developed in this area
... to which extent browsers and assistive tools support particular aspects
<Peter> (no worries :)
SAZ: WAI is working on an accessibility support
database
... but there are tons of challenges related to web applications and
accessibility
<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Touch_Interfaces
Peter: what is the level of detail we want on the
wiki
... also agree it would be good to have more information on accessibility
support
<Peter> ok, sounds good!
Simon: doesn't need too much detail but should be
decriptive
... does not need to be fully though out or developed but explanatory
... can add more sub-pages with more detail
... do not think we should hesitate to have the accessibility support stuff on
the wiki
... should not discount but keep ideas there
... may also help advertise exisiting work where available
... researchers may stumble over it and find something deployable
<Peter> great - thanks - will do :)
Simon: some overalp is good, shows relevance
<Mario-Batusic> I agree
<Mario-Batusic> I understand this wiki as a kind of database for research ideas for all people
<vconway> no, all sounds good