See also: IRC log
SH: Peter, can you please take us through this pre-call?
PT: I'm looking up URI
... We have a draft that you can check out, we'd love feedback.
... The dates are TBC
... We could combine the three topics into one Wiki.
SH: I've read this, I think its really good.
... Lets discuss it. I hope we can confirm this as Pre-call, confirm it, then move onto main call as per Shadis timeline.
<Peter_Thiessen> I can see everyone loves it!
VC: I read it earlier. Is it too extensive, due to timeline?
SH: Yes. But we did make a descision to combine topics.
SH: We will get overlap however.
PT: I agree we are covering a lot. These are topics are quite new. Getting papers may be tough.
<giorgio> peter, can you speak louder?
PT: Combining them will help us to increase the number of papers.
SAZ: It looks fine to me. Good work for the pre-call.
<Peter_Thiessen> Sorry Giorgio - new headset :) Was just saying that the topics are a bit new and getting papers might be tough - reason for combining into one symposium
SAZ: I wan't to run it by UAWG and other WAI groups.
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to send to WAI-Coordination Groups. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/22-rd-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Send to WAI-Coordination Groups. [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-02-29].
<Peter_Thiessen> (sounds good Shadi)
<Peter_Thiessen> :) (sorry)
SAZ: We need to bring to WAI-Coordination group, CSUN is on next week. Many will be there.
SH: Am happy to get feedback.
<Peter_Thiessen> exactly - it's all dependent on when we send out the pre-call (so right before sending we can then update the dates)
SH: The date is important, public timeline starts when this is first released. We should get out asap - hopefully next week.
SAZ: Lets all raise it in the groups that we know.
JOC: I'll bring it to PF.
<scribe> ACTION: Josh to bring Pre-call doc to PF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/22-rd-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Bring Pre-call doc to PF [on Joshue O Connor - due 2012-02-29].
<Peter_Thiessen> Shadi - since the wiki has tracking, feel free to tell the chairs to just edit the wiki draft (we can revert something if we disagree)
<Peter_Thiessen> (good point :)
GB: Just a few points. The title may need to be explained (Pre).
<Peter_Thiessen> (oops will remove that NOW)
GB: The point about 'how are the quality of metrics assessed". Metrics is out of place.
<Peter_Thiessen> (copy and paste strikes again)
GB: Also the final date is to be determined.
... Remove tentative.
<Peter_Thiessen> Ok so deadline 1st of April? (will edit now if so)
SH: Yes, April is do-able.
... Shadi, will there be much feedback from co-ord group?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to comment on Mobile accessibility guidelines and the relationship to existing guidelines; and to say "pre-call" internal -- maybe "advanced notice" or such
SAZ: If we do get to announce in next week or two we may need to revisit but now its ok.
SLH: We are saying Pre-call, but this term may need to be changed. Advanced Notice or similar.
+1 to Shawn
JOC: +1 to Shawn
<giorgio> provisional sounds ok to me
<Peter_Thiessen> Ok, sure - Advance Call ?
SH: Thats fine. Please do think about options.
SLH: What about a research perspective?
SH: Thats fine.
SLH: In the bullets, the mobile gls in relation
to existing gls.
... From a WAI perspective, we don't want to encourage the creation of more guidelines that cover issues that are already covered in WAI guidelines.
... So we need to look at existing GLs that relate to mobile a11y.
... We need to look at the gap and what else is needed -- maybe application guidance, specific techniques, etc.
<markel> I think that the bullet point in the CFP refers to sth like this http://www.w3.org/TR/mwbp-wcag/
SLH: We need to look at relevancy of what is there.
PT: I agree with what Shawn said.
SH: Anyother points?
<markel> we had that for reviews
<Peter_Thiessen> (Wiki updated on two points: 1) from Giorgio to remove metrics bit, 2) Shawn's point about bullet two)
SAZ: This has been defined somewhere.
... I think that we may have experts not as a part of this group to review.
SH: is the planning committe a part of F2F?
SAZ: We can get people externally to help with review.
SAZ: In the last symposiom the planning and Scientific community were the same
SH: I move then that the planning and scientific should be the same.
<Peter_Thiessen> I volunteer Simon :)
<markel> I volunteer to do that
<giorgio> I could
<shadi> I volunteer too
<sharper> I will
SH: Who wan'ts to be on the scientific committee.
<Peter_Thiessen> Oh right but I meant I volunteer you Simon :) oh perfect
<shawn> [ shawn interested but not sure about time committment ]
SAZ: Klaus or someone from his team maybe.
<vivienne> Would I be any help?
JOC: Me also but can't commit.
<vivienne> Okay, then count me in
<Peter_Thiessen> Hi Yeliz, we just took a look at the pre call and made a few edits (nothing big)
SH: We will look at the doc, discuss etc.
<yeliz> missed the beginning of the discussion
<Peter_Thiessen> (at my work people who are late for meetings are forced into doing 10 pushups :)
SH: We did well last week. I suggest we start at section 3.
<vivienne> Can I have the link?
SH: Ok, so I'm starting at paragraph 19. "The papers that were presented [...]"
<shadi> [[3. Current Research]]
SH: There were few edits last time, good job.
SH: Paragraph twenty section 3 is good.
SAZ: Is this is first ref to Symposium?
... Readers may not get it.
GB: Yes, it is. We could add a line in the introduction.
<yeliz> I agree with Shadi
SAZ: Ok, under section 1 intro. Yes. That'll fix it.
GB: Markel can you take notes?
MV: I am doing it.
Y: I have a couple of suggestions, I would like some aspects expanded.
<shadi> +1 Yeliz
<markel> good point Yeliz
Y: The papers are in the refs, but are mixed with others. Should there be an Appendix? A list of accepted papers.
SH: The appendix will have those that are listed.
Y: So the note will have one?
<yeliz> yes, Giorgio
GB: Gives overview of structure of note.
SH: The Appendix does have to be included.
<yeliz> I agree with Giorgio
GB: Ok, I will put in the list of accepted papers.
SAZ: There may be room for discussion on this.
<markel> it was clear in the CFP
SH: I am firm about it. So authors will get a referenceable paper.
SAZ: Maybe we need to find new wording.
Y: I agree with Shadi. The note without the full papers would be self contained.
SH: I disagree.
<Peter_Thiessen> agree with Simon
<shawn> [ links on W3C website will not change -- whether or not they are part of the Note ]
<giorgio> can we be given the floor?
<yeliz> Markel, I don't see how papers will be cited when they are in the appendix in the research note?
<yeliz> I agree with Giorgio
<yeliz> how papers will be cited in the appendix?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say agree citable, but does not have to be appendix -- in fact, then harder to cite specific paper. instead unique uri
<yeliz> Isn't better that papers have a permanent place to be cited?
<markel> From http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/cfp: "Accepted papers will be published - in an attributable form - as part of the proceedings and in the ensuing publication (http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/process#publications and http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/process#credits)."
<yeliz> They really have to be citeable
<yeliz> I agree with Shawn
<markel> we have to find a mechanism so that papers can be citeable no matter if they are in an appendix or any other thing
<yeliz> Does W3C have a policy about DOI?
<yeliz> Shawn? Is there a policy on DOI?
<Peter_Thiessen> (sounds good Shadi)
SH: We'll come back to this.
<shadi> 3.1 Addressing Validity and Reliability
<shadi> [[3.1 Addressing Validity and Reliability]]
SH: Section 3.1 - comments?
<shawn> [ yeliz - not that i know of, but happy to check into it ]
<markel> we can put links not sure about LIFT
<shadi> +1 to giorgio
<markel> I'm ambivalent about this
GB: The less we write without reducing formation the better.
<shadi> +1 to section
Y: Thats fine.
<vivienne> there is a typo in the first line
SH: 3.2 paragraph 23 - comments?
<shadi> [[3.2 Tool Support for Metrics]]
<shadi> scribe: shadi
VC: type in first line
<markel> got it
[[3.3 Addressing Large-Scale Measurement]]
<markel> got it
GB: typo "of of"
[[3.4 Targeting Particular Accessibility Issues]]
<yeliz> from an instance
<yeliz> typing mistake
<shawn> see Referencing and Linking to WAI Guidelines and Technical Documents http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/linking.html
<markel> thanks you are right, I will retrieve that URI,
<vivienne> I thin there is a double fullstgop after the reference to NFernandes11a
<vivienne> yes, 3.5
[[3.5 Novel Measurement Approaches]]
<yeliz> yes, they are
<yeliz> I think it would be good to rephrase the last sentence
<vivienne> typo - 'fulfilment'
[[Vigo [Vigo11c] proposes a method that enables]]
<christos> typo in the end of line 6 "but is also focuses..."
<yeliz> not clear to me
<yeliz> what it means
<markel> methods is the ones proposed by A Nietzio
<yeliz> yes, that would be great Giorgio
<vivienne> maybe 'computes a failure rate comparing passes and failures ..."
<markel> we will do this
[[3.6 Beyond Conformance]]
<christos> sorry... this is on 3.6 ... typo in the end of line 6 "but is also focuses..."
<vivienne> grammar in first sentence a little rough
<markel> sorry I missed the one by Shadi
of a product (that constantly change) -> of products (that constantly change)
of a product (that constantly change) -> of a product (that constantly changes)
<yeliz> Lets do that
[[This perspective is innovative as it looks beyond the current conformance paradigm and aims to tap more into the user experience, and this is something that is not necessarily defined by current methods of technical validation or document conformance.]] may need more discussion as it is judgmental about the different approaches rather than a neutral summary
<markel> got that Chorstos
<christos> goodbye everybody.... I have to go...
<markel> I agree on the co-existence Shadi