Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

07 Mar 2012

See also: IRC log


Shawn, Shadi, Christos, Simon, Vivienne, Yehya, Giorgio, Markel
Yeliz, Peter, Joshue, Charles


Has Mobile Pre-Call been Released?

<sharper> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012Mar/0000.html

<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Pre_CFP

sharper: comment from Jeanne Spellman - she thinks that the topic in the list should be rephrased slightly. In the list on the topic on the WIKI, in the pre-call, one of the points she would like changed

Shadi: followed up with Jeanne who indicates the phrasing of the 2nd sentence doesn't quite match the template provided

<shawn> [ Shawn thinks Jeanne's rewrite is less clear]

Sharper: we've had to adapt 3 different parts together who has caused this. This could be smoothed through in the full call with Peter & Yeliz are with us on the call. The change suggested is reasonable to me.

Either the question needs to change of the template be made more flexible

Shadi: it is a mismatch between the 2nd question and the template - suggested rephrasing the question
... the 1st and 3rd questions have a different tone and approach than the 2nd one. Can we suggest something else now for the 2nd question?

Sorry, who is speaking now?

SLH: do we want to just take out the word 'do', so it says "how existing WAI guidelines cover..."
... I would also take out the 'if needed'

<shawn> How existing WAI guidelines cover mobile accessibility issues and what additional guidance is needed, such as techniques;

<giorgio> we could even drop "such as techniques"

<shawn> How existing WAI guidelines cover mobile accessibility and what additional guidance is needed

<giorgio> +1

SLH: is it useful to have 'techniques' to put it in the context? People who aren't familiar with existing guidelines and techniques might go and propose something totally different.

Giorgio: we already said about the mobile accessibility guidelines, so we address things like techniques, but also methods, tools etc. It would make it more open.

Sharper: it can be cleared up in the full call, but we're already behind on the timeline. I've made the changes in the WIKI

<shadi> [[What coverage can additional WCAG 2.0 Techniques provide]]

Shadi: I'm happy with the change, but I don't want to drop the techniques either. People are developing guidelines which could be covered by WCAG techniques. How about we leave that generic question as it is now. "What coverage could WCAG techniques provide?"

Sharper: do you want this in the pre-call or the main call?

Shadi: in the pre-call

Sharper: post it in as an additional topic?

SLH: could go as an additional bullet point

sharper: do you agree with this so it can be released?

SLH: are we going to set up web pages or invite people to the WIKI page?

<giorgio> ok for me

Shadi: we could create a URL and put up a page - I can do that. We need a resolution from the group

<sharper> +1

<markel> I'm fine with it

Shadi: let's look at the timelines - 1st April

<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Main_Page

<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Topic_Timeline

Sharper: on the main WIKI page - research topic has a topic timeline that has been sent to the mailing list - as close to April 1 as possible - is set for $ April

4 April

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/planning

Sharper: we're already late for announcing the main call for papers

SLH: the reason we were doing a pre-call was to get the information out early - do we need to do this, or can we just put out a call?

Sharper: we've got discussions to do which could delay the call
... we need to get the copyright and accreditation out

<markel> yes


<christos> yes

<giorgio> yep

Sharper: I've been planning the next set of teleconferences, so if we're late on this one it makes all the others late
... if we need to squeeze anything, it's the 4 week review period

Shadi: can you clarify which 4 weeks?

Sharper: 4 April to 2 May is 4 weeks which is a 2 week review and a 2 week rebuttal, should be a 2 week review and a 1 week rebuttal. Deadline for papers 18th April and then squish the rebuttal period so we can still meet the date for the teleconference

Shadi: - 8 weeks, deadline for papers, then 2 weeks for review of submissions and feedback (scientific committee), start of rebuttal period, then there is 2 weeks for the scientific committee to check changes and there's another 2 weeks there. Do you want to push that down to 1 week.
... earliers would still be 4 June.

<markel> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Topic_Timeline

Shadi: so the date for the teleconference is 30 May

Giorgio: what happens if we release 2 webinars in the year?

Sharper: charter says 3-4, but we could get away with 3. 2 is too little and would reduce the imact and emphasis. I think we can get another 3-4 in after the mobile as timelines can overlap.

<shawn> [ Shawn has avoided committing much time to the mobile topic so as to focus on the next one! ]

Giorgio: okay, agree. We should work on the process for deciding what the precall is and the process for editing etc. We need to shorten that process and be more efficient.

Sharper: that's why we need the conference management system

Giorgio: the precall could be announced in 1 week

Sharper: We need to have all the times in the timeline and streamline it in the process and get something to help us with the rebuttal/review process
... do we say that we're going to have the deadline for submission as 18 April?
... teleconference date 30th May

<giorgio> I'd go for declaring the dates asap so that we committ to them

Shadi: 4 weeks get us to 18th April, after W4A

Sharper: deadline for closing papers 18th April
... do we agree that this pre-call is now it? Main call by next week so we can discuss it?

SLH: we'll need to check on the scheduling today or tomorrow?

Shadi: only thing that's stopping us from doing the call is the authorship thing. We could announce the call next week - optimistically?

Sharper: do we have agreement?
... has everyone seen Shadi's comments?

<giorgio> #2. After this first publication: I think the taxonomy for "validity", "reliability", etc is rather confusing and needs further work.

MV: I'm not sure what Shadi means regarding the 2nd point - explan?

Shadi: the definitions and discussions about validity, reliability, can overlap and be confusing
... if we are saying validity etc. are the most important, we should be clear on what they mean

Giorgio: it's unclear to me as well. If it's important, then we need to address it now.

Shadi: it's at the editor's discretion. Sometimes there is overlap - eg section 4 lists with examples. Both validity and reliability talk about changes in the guidelines. It comes down to more editorial cleaning. Maybe during the review period I could write this up in more detail.

<giorgio> ok

MV: Giorgio and I are the editors so that the reliability and validity are quite clear to us. I understand Shadi's thoughts about overlap, which does exist, but we're addressing deeper problems. Maybe once the draft is published and we get comments from others we can polish it up.

Shadi: agreed - that was just my impression from reading it. Overlap - inter-related - how we break down certain things.

<markel> that's the point

<markel> it could be endless

<markel> :-)

Shadi: I don't see any problems technically.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say I have had several conflicting response to the coined terminology "accessibility-in-use". On the one hand, I really like it! On the other hand, I wonder

Shadi: we need an abstract section and the W3C specifications - Status of this Document - is quite important. Describes each particular version - how it differs from others and lists questions for the reviewers. IN order to package this in the W3C format I need this information from the editors.

<giorgio> ok

MV: are you all happy with the additions?

<shadi> +1

I saw a couple of typos

<sharper> +1

<christos> +1

<shawn> https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22usable+accessibility%22

SLH: the documents coins terminology 'accessibility in use' - 2 reactions to that. 1 - likes it, 2 - using the existing phrase 'usable accessibility'. I've been thinking about the best approach - coin a new term or use an esiting one

Giorgio: don't like 'usable accessibility' - applies the adjedtive usable to accessibility - but it's at a different level.

Sharper: I don't like the term 'usable accessibility' , I prefer 'accessibility in use'

<shawn> [ Shawn also likes accessibility-in-use ]

<shawn> [ Shawn also likes accessibility-in-use -- and usable accessibility :-]

Sharper: all in favour?

<sharper> +1

Sharper: we can keep 'accessibility in use' - resolved

Shadi: editors send me this in html form and I will put it in the W3C template and put it in the publication queue. As a first public working draft it takes a little longer as we need a URL, approval etc. Maybe 2-3 weeks time once the html is in place.
... so far it's all looking good for the publication. I need a resolution from the group

RESOLUTION: To publish this draft as a first public working draft
... To publish the precall

Sharper: next week the discussion about the copyright and citation
... any other business?

Shadi: continue discussion by email as a response to Yeliz - maybe change the topic title

Sharper: I'll respond to Yeliz on the list and we can go from there

SLH: 28 March the potential next topic ready for discussion and address pre-call

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/12 14:22:23 $