Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

29 Feb 2012

See also: IRC log


Harper_Simon, Vigo_Markel, Brajnik_Giorgio, Abou-Zahra_Shadi, Thiessen_Peter
Kouroupetroglou_Christos, McCathieNevile_Charles, O'Connor_Joshue, Yesilada_Yeliz


Pre-Call Release Discussion - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Pre_CFP

SH: anything from other WAI groups?

SAZ: no responses for a week now
... should reping them but proceed, assuming there are no objections

SH: can drop copyright issue for now, if people agree
... just on the pre-call

<Peter> Yup, sounds good Simon (to me)

SH: then discuss later

<markel> fine to me

<giorgio> good fo me

SH: sound ok?

RESOLUTION: drop copyright policy clause from the pre-call and rediscuss before the main announcement

<Peter> +1 (changes :)

W3C Note Editing

SH: people agree with Yeliz's comments?
... more discussion needed?

GB: have another version with the changes
... hope to close today
... then will circulate updated version

SH: main issue seems to be about section 3.7

MV: most of section 3 describes the papers while 3.7 describes the discussion

SH: could change the title to something like "concluding remarks" to clarify the content

[[3.7 Questions]]

<sharper> +1

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to request a pedantic change (different point)

SAZ: propose to continue using the term "website accessibility metrics" rather than "web accessibility metrics"
... to reflect that we only mean metrics for websites rather than web accessibility
... which would need other metrics in addition to websites

MV: think capital "Web" (rather "web") would denote all aspects of the web
... most papers talked about indiivdual pages

GB: what is the risk of saying "web accessibility metrics"?

SAZ: frequent myth that web content accessibility is all of accessibility
... need to reiterate where we can that we understand this aspect

GB: not sure we want to confine ourselves to web content only

<markel> to me "website" has a different connotation

GB: also not sure that we are only discussing web content

<markel> if we say "website accessibility metrics" its metrics for the WHOLE website

<markel> and single web pages are left out

SAZ: how about a brief section to describe this scope?

GB: is it necessary?

SAZ: I think so, often misunderstanding that "web accessibility" is "web content" only

GB: what do others think?

SH: ok with me

<Peter_Thiessen> +1 (behavior for example is often not included in people

<Peter_Thiessen> 's assumptions about what web accessibility is)

MV: ok with me but not sure addresses the issue that shadi is talking about

<Peter_Thiessen> (behavior = browser events and user events :)

SH: agree with trying a sentence or so to clarify that

<Peter_Thiessen> +1

[[Secondly, we wanted to know whether accessibility metrics ...]]

[[4. A Research Roadmap for Web Accessibility Metrics]]

<Peter_Thiessen> (Sadly have to run to a meeting :( best of luck finishing up and have a great week - cheers)

SAZ: sentence could fit here but editors discretion

[[4.1 Ensuring Metric Quality]]


<sharper> +1

[[4.1.2 Reliability]]

<sharper> +1

[[4.1.3 Sensitivity]]

SH: less "meat" on section 4.1.3 and 4.1.4
... is it because less input from the webinar or other reasons?

GB: think validity and reliability more important
... also more references to discuss

SH: could clarify that there is less work there
... but not imply that they are less important

<giorgio> GOOD POINT sHADI.

SAZ: (1) agree that lack of discussion is an important point to message in the document
... (2) consider putting the two last items into one section like "other considerations"
... (3) seems to be missing "complexity" aspect too
... (4) in 4.1.3 we are mixing "website testing" and "web accessibility"

MV: agree

<giorgio> ok

MV: we specifically looked at reliability and validity more

SH: need to be upfront about it
... and highlight these aspects

[[4.2 A Corpus for Metrics Benchmarking]]

SAZ: agree with the paragraph
... sent comments to the editors with additional references for considerations

MV: already in new version, useful references

[[4.3 Credibility issues]]

MV: raised by Annika on the panel
... also Shadi provided some comments
... think it is important point with several issues
... maybe need to expand
... need more input

SH: related to how we frame it
... could go into 4.2

SAZ: agree with putting in 4.2
... also agree that it is very important very delicate
... especially policy makers love numbers even if no one knows what they mean

MV: understand credibility as a side topic of validity and reliability
... so agree with considering putting it in section 4.2

<markel> i meant side-effect

GB: need to think more about the relationship to other items in 4.2
... occurs to me we did not explain Annika's point well
... need to clarify point more clearly

MV: relates to reliability, no?

GB: yes, low validity in tools related to low credibility

[[4.4.1 User-tailored metrics]]


<sharper> +1

<markel> that's doable

[[4.4.2 Dealing with dynamic content]]

GB: maybe could talk about WAI-ARIA and ask for more explorations in this aspect

<markel> good idea Giorgio +1

SAZ: seems to talk about two aspects of "dynamic"
... interactivity of scripting/interaction/etc

<markel> yes

<giorgio> YES

SAZ: and changes over time (such as wiki etc)


SAZ: think it doesn't do the document justice
... so much good content in the document
... may need to reflect the discussion more in the conclusion

MV: agree with Shadi

Resolving open issues on the draft

<giorgio> ME TOO

SH: some open issues on section 3.7 and other sections
... can do it next week?

MV: yes

SH: will put on the agenda for next week
... only to discuss these parts
... then put into a new draft for group review

MV: suggest to include the other changes discussed so far

SH: since substantial changes, please highlight them

SAZ: usually have an appendix called "document changes" or such

<markel> I agree with GB

SAZ: please send me HTML and I can cross-link the two versions

GB: how about work with open office comments?
... for this round before publishing first editor draft

SAZ: fine, as long as no accessibility constraints

<giorgio> you are welcome Simon

MV: question from shadi about credits

<giorgio> we added the following stuff:

<giorgio> Some excerpts of this document are extracted from an initial brainstorming document at http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics where a number of members of the RDWG helped to populate. We are therefore grateful to Shadi Abou-Zahra, Mario Batusic, Simon Harper, Shawn Lawton Henry, Rui Lopes, Máté Pataki, Peter Thiessen and Yeliz Yesilada.

SAZ: this is sufficient for now
... can also think about a contributors section

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/02/29 16:22:47 $