Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

13 Oct 2011

See also: IRC log


Shadi, Joshue, Simon, Mate, Vivienne, Mario, Peter
Yeliz, Giorgio, Christos
Joshue, Shadi


Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)

SH: We can put this to be and the editors can discuss this.

Final Agreement on Evaluation Procedure - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Paper_Selection_Criteria

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.

Upcoming Focus

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

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/10/25 18:32:33 $