See also: IRC log
MV: try to establish a protocol re Q&A
... trying to let the panel know what will happen
All: discussion re seminar
G: Regarding the protocol, between 3-4 there will be presentations.
... As chairs we will explain the proceedure and give several minutes for overviews of papers etc
... We don't want to allow questions after each paper.
... Maybe save them to the end?
SH: Thats good.
G: Otherwise things may slide etc
... Papers can be presented in the order they are listed.
... Markel, did you make changes?
M: No
G: This could lead to ~4 where we can start the panel discussion.
... This will be managed by the chairs. Only authors will be allowed to participate in the panel.
... We want to sent the questions now to panelists so they can prepare.
SH: Can you give us them now?
G: Yes
<markel> Considering your contribution to the symposium, who is or will be the target user of your metrics? for which purposes? Why do you think that your approach will be adopted?
G: We would like the author to tell us what they think about the applicability of the metric.
<markel> Second question: How do you ensure the validity of your approach? How costly/risky are decisions made on the basis of wrong values of metrics?
<markel> Third question: Do you have any thoughts about how your approach can benefit accessibility in use (a process perspective rather than a product -conformance- one)?
G: We will ask particpants to tell us what they think.
... I think the chairs should remain impartial and take it all in.
SH: Yes, good idea
G: Then from 4.30 to 5, Q&A.
SH: We have ~ 50 people and there will be a lot of questions to be covered in little time.
<markel> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3976331/Comments%20of%20symposium%20papers%20-%20editors.odt
<markel> I put the link to the document
Intention of having questions is so we can get the authors ideas in the purest form for the W3C Note
So the proposal is to...
create an agenda thus...
Agenda for the symposium on accessibility metrics
15: 00-16:00 Presentations
... 00-15:05. Welcome and introduction.
Chairs will explain the procedures and participation protocols. Then, a slot of 5 minutes will be available for each contribution. Slides will be set online so that the audience can look at them while the paper is being presented. Therefore, authors will have to explicitly mention, the number of the slide they are presenting as well as all forward/backward transitions on their slides. There will be no questions after each presentation.
Papers will be presented in the following order:
1. Integration of Web Accessibility Metrics into a Semi-Automatic evaluation process. M. Naftali and O. Clúa.
2. Measuring accessibility barriers on large scale sets of pages. M. Battistelli, S. Mirri, L.A. Muratori and P. Salomoni.
3. A Template-aware Web Accessibility metric. N. Fernandes, R. Lopes and L. Carriço.
4. A metrics to make different DTDs documents evaluations comparable. M. Battistelli, S. Mirri, L.A. Muratori and P. Salomoni.
5. Lexical Quality as a Measure for Textual Web Accessibility. R. Baeza-Yates and L. Rello.
6. Attaining Metric Validity and Reliability with the Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric. M. Vigo, J. Abascal, A. Aizpurua and M. Arrue.
7. The case for a WCAG-based evaluation scheme with a graded rating scale. D. Fischer and T. Wyatt.
8. A zero in eChecker equals a 10 in eXaminator: a comparison between two metrics by their scores. J. Fernandes and C. Benavidez.
9. Context-Tailored Web Accessibility Metrics. M. Vigo.
10. Web Accessibility Metrics For A Post Digital World. D. Sloan and B. Kelly.
11. Towards a score function for WCAG 2.0 benchmarking. A. Nietzio, M. Eibegger, M. Goodwin and M. Snaprud.
16: 00-16:30 Panel discussion
Only chairs and participants will be able to take part. Panel participants will be asked some question in order to know their opinion on certain hot topics about accessibility metrics. For their and chairs' conveniency we ask panelists to have their answers prepared.
Considering your contribution to the symposium, who is or will be the target user of your metrics? for which purposes? Why do you think that your approach will be adopted?
How do you ensure the validity of your approach? How costly/risky are decisions made on the basis of wrong values of metrics?
Do you have any thoughts about how your approach can benefit accessibility in use (a process perspective rather than a product -conformance- one)?
16: 30-17:00 Question and answer open to all participants
At this point we can open questions to the audience and can make questions about particular papers or about what has been discussed in the panel discussion.
This sounds reasonable to me
<christos> ok
So we need to get this out today
Q&A may be a little short this time
But I think we should go for it in this form for the first one
<scribe> ACTION: giorgio to Send the agenda to the panelists [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/01-rd-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Send the agenda to the panelists [on giorgio brajnik - due 2011-12-08].
<markel> SH: its better not to extend questions
<markel> SH: ...we have limited time
<markel> SH: they are ok... otherwise it'd be very dry
<markel> GB: what kind of limitations do you think accessibility conformance metrice have? how can it be improved ?
<markel> GB: could we go beyond that?
what is beyond conformance based metrics?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics
discussion re accessibility in use
MV shall we start 15 minur=tes ealier for the chairs to check it is all OK so we can be ready and start on time
RESOLUTION: Chairs, Shadi, and Simon to be present online and on call 15 minutes in advance of 15:00 (GMT) - and Authors 5 minutes before to set up so we can start at 15:00 GMT prompt.
RESOLUTION: shadi should be sending us all personal telephones codes too.
RESOLUTION: Park this until next time