Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)

<sharper> zakim take up item 5

<markel> I did

<christos> I did too

<giorgio> I did not!

<sharper> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG_meeting_time/

<giorgio> ok: I'll do it

Time survey

<Joshue108> SH: Thoughts on the time survey?

<markel> how many people answered to the survey?

<Joshue108> SH: We thought Monday would be good. The survey looks like this is the best time.

<Joshue108> SH: I looks like everyone is happy with the current time.

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG_meeting_time/results

<Joshue108> SH: Lets wait for Yeliz and Giorgio and see where we are at then.

<Joshue108> JOC: This time is fine for me, but I would like Weds.

<Joshue108> SH: Doesn't suit Christos.

<giorgio> I can do it on Wed or Thursdays.

<Joshue108> SH: We will finalise it next week

<Joshue108> <discussion continues>

Discuss W3C Note Status

<Joshue108> SH: I'll pass this over to the editors.

<Joshue108> M: We agreed to have an inital meeting before today but there were a couple of set backs. We have a very early draft.

<Joshue108> MV: We will have a proper one next week that we can discuss at the meeting

<Joshue108> GB: I want to add that I wasn't well, but we had some exchanges and an idea of the document structure.

<Joshue108> GB: We can show you an outline of what we want to say.

<Joshue108> SH: Great stuff.

<markel> 1 Introduction

<markel> 1.1 Definition and background

<markel> 1.2 The benefits of using metrics

<markel> 2 Overview of current accessibility challenges

<markel> 2.1 Validity

<markel> 2.2 Reliability

<markel> 2.3 Sensitivity

<markel> 2.4 Adequacy

<markel> 2.5 Tailorability

<markel> 3 Current research actions

<markel> 3.1 Addressing current challenges

<markel> 3.2 Tool support for metrics

<markel> 3.3 Addressing large scale measurement

<markel> 3.4 Targeting particular accessibility issues

<markel> 3.5 Novel measurement approaches

<markel> 3.6 Beyond conformance

<markel> 4 A research roadmap for web accessibility metrics

<markel> 4.1 A Corpus for benchmarking purposes

<markel> 4.2 User-tailored metrics

<markel> 4.3 Dealing with dynamic content

<markel> 4.4 Credibility issues

<Joshue108> GB: We have three parts. An intro, the context of the problem, a framework etc. Then in the middle Section 3, provides an overview of the main thrust of the seminar discussion etc. Then Section 4, finally, is the roadmap. Our view of how these issues that were raised can inform us. New directions etc.

<Joshue108> MV: The last section should be understood as a research program.

<Joshue108> GB: I was thinking that a new Phd student would find inspiration here.

<giorgio> thanks shadi.

<Joshue108> SAZ: Thanks for making the call. The TOC looks great. I look forward to reading it. Regarding the target audience for the last section. There are also lots of discussions research such as MEAC and other national monitors.

<Joshue108> SAZ: This could be useful for a wider audience.

<sharper> This TOC looks great!

<sharper> q

<Joshue108> SAZ: Think of the wider audience, or is it too early?

<Joshue108> SAZ: It may be for others and not just Phd students. It could be used to develop indicators for large scale evaluations. I hope this makes sense.

<markel> yes of course we are not limiting it to what GB's case study

<Joshue108> GB: You made a good point, this could be one type of usage. Web a11y metrics are still very immature and a lot of R and D, validation etc needs to happen for the metric to mature.

<Joshue108> GB: If the EU, or others want to invest in the metric at this stage I would advise caution.

<Joshue108> GB: I don't see metrics as being ready for industrial use.

<Joshue108> SAZ: Will you express this in the doc?

<Joshue108> GB: Yes. We will highlight the possible risks for end users.

<Joshue108> GB: Metrics appear to be a quick and easy solution, easy to take up and say roughly some arbitraty figure - but what does that really mean. The a11y community is not happy with this approach and we need to do something about this.

<Joshue108> SAZ: We need to make people aware. This kind of thing will happen anyway, so we need to provide advice.

<Joshue108> GB: A test corpus would be good.

<Joshue108> +q

<Joshue108> SH: I'm really looking forwad to reading this. How well did the contributions we got inform the decision. Was the seminar useful? Did you have to go to other places.

<Joshue108> GB: No, we should base it on what participants wrote and gave to the Webinar.

<Joshue108> SH: Did you have to interpret it or is it taken directly?

<Joshue108> MV: There were challenges and not all contributions addressed this.

<Joshue108> MV: The symposium was useful.

<sharper> GB Number of metrics we didn't expect

<sharper> GB metrics for lexical quality etc etc

<sharper> GB for example

<sharper> bye Josh

<sharper> GB one direction that the research community could go in addressing each point individually and by so doing advance the area

<markel> ScribeNick: markel

SH: sounds really good

Discuss Next Topic

SH: we should discuss the next note and probably the note after that
... in order to create a landscape for the next year; candidly it is unlikely to attract more people to the group until we show our potential to the community

+

SH: which means that is only us to work and edit on next topics and documents
... first, we should think who can the next editors be. We did a very good symposium
... I wonder what people think about that

CK: I think it's a good plan for the next seminars to get ready. We can also get ready beforehand.

SH: right, we know now it works and there is no need to discuss these issues again
... once we got 2-3 reports we'll start to gain more people into the group that will allow us to push on
... I have the impression that people are not aware of what's going on

MV: are you suggesting we should first choose editors before topics

SH: we should be aware which are our resources
... people should be able to put their names forward if their are interested

GB: let's choose editors that are passionate about a topic and tell them to work on that
... emphasize on "passionate"

SH: if we are talking about june we should have one every two months

SAZ: I agree.

<shadi> [[we are chartered to do 3-4 per year]]

SH: we know that YY and PT want to do he mobile stuff

SAZ: there's a new topic SLH is passionate about: low vision aspect

SH: it's just SAZ, CK and I who haven't been editors
... maybe we should approach to Yeliz and Peter

MV: I agree with that

SH: there is another one about "Touch interfaces" and "Mobile Accessibility"

<giorgio> I agree with simon

CK: I was ready to make the point to say that we have some overlap
... I don't know if it's better to keep them separated or merge them. I think that merging them...we might end up handling many things

I agree with CK

GB: let's decide who could be de editor of the mobile thing and ask them whether they want to focus on one topic or merge different ones

SH: I agree with that 100%

CK: there's another topic I've already added: Augmented reality which is also related to mobile

SH: it could be the augmented reality on the virtual reality
... would you be an editor?

CK: I'm ok with that

SH: I'm going to speak to Yeliz and Peter and hopefully we will get them