Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

14 Mar 2012

See also: IRC log


Yehya, Vivienne, Simon, Shadi, Yeliz, Markel, Giorgio, Peter, Joshue


Changes to Pre-Call http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Talk:Mobile_Pre_CFP

simon: changed the agenda

Simon: start with mobile pre call

Shadi: comments we reeived. The text of the call is not well enough according to development in the field. There is alot of work happening in the field. Our message should acknowledge that. Not to do as starting from zero.

<shadi> s/simone/simon

Shadi: second comment: envolvement of people with disabilities. This is an issue beyond the scope of this group but a responsibility for us to involve people with disabilities. This is unnfortunately common.
... how we will address the two coments in an appropriate way?

<Peter_Thiessen> (catching up now)

<Peter_Thiessen> +1


<vivienne> having a read first


<markel> +1

<vivienne> +1

<Peter_Thiessen> (had the same confusion as Yeliz about the pre_call)

Yeliz: regarding Comment1: This is a pre call and it is very short to reference existing work. In the extended version will be a lot of refernces. Comments 2: I understand it but I do not know how to involve PwD

Shadi: Response of Yeliz to the first comment: I agree with the rational, but we need only a small change with few sentences.

<giorgio> I agree with yeliz, on keeping it open

Yeliz: pre call will be very short. In the full call the related work should be considered. Regarding the second comment, accessibility is a major isssue and not only regarding PwD. I propose to keep it open for every body. Covering People in their daily lifes. This implies larger audience

<Peter_Thiessen> (np :)

<giorgio> Among the two options I would go for "We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words."

<yeliz> Shadi, I am OK with the change

<yeliz> I think it's good

Shadi: Response: First point, even if it is a pre call, we should clraify this very short even their with a small tweak.

<yeliz> I agree there are two different issues

<giorgio> I keep loosing the audio! sorry: I'll have to rely on the written text..

Shadi: Involving PwD: The definition of accessibility there are different opinions. The other issue how to involve PwD.

Simon: what changes would you like to see on the paragraph?

<Peter_Thiessen> Are we still referring to this link for the pre-call? : http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Pre_CFP

Yeliz: the wording can be changed - Talking about broader accessibility. The other thing about challenges of PwD to use mobile systems

Peter: Comment 1: agree with shadi we can have a quick change. Second thing either one sound specific,

<vivienne> Im okay with Shadi's suggested changes

Simon: asked for further comments

<shadi> [[WAI: Strategies, guidelines, resources to make the Web accessible to people with disabilities]]

<Peter_Thiessen> agree with Simon about WAI and priorities and definition for PwD ..

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say that *primary focus* on disability should not exclude other groups

Simon: I discussed with Shadi about the definition of accessibility. WAI has a specific understanding about this. As we are in WAI we should consider there understanding. In future calls we may elabortae more on this issue. I propose to keep the paragraph as it is

<yeliz> I understand this, I think it makes sense to make the call inline with the WAI's goals as RDWG is part WAI group

Shadi: about WAI's mission and understanding. Make the web accessibile for PwD. Despite the focus of WAI we should not exclude other groups. The primary focus is on PwD. The term inclusion means the involvement of groups e.g. low income, low bandwidth. We do not have a boarder in our motivation. We consider as well the universal web available to everybody. Caution should be payed not to losse the focus on PwD

<yeliz> As I said earlier, we can update this as suggested

<yeliz> It's just I personally support wider scope for accesibility

Simon: Accessibility in this way can not cover discrimination

<yeliz> However, I am OK with this change

<giorgio> ok for me

Joshue: I agree with Shadi. Keeping the focus benifits all groups.

<giorgio> yehia: that was josh, not giogio

<Peter_Thiessen> +1 (1st paragraph, change looks good etc.)

<yeliz> +1

<vivienne> +1

<markel> +1 first p

<giorgio> +1


Simon: resolution of this issue accepted by all presnt persons

<sharper> RESOLVED: Accept changes to Intro para

<Peter_Thiessen> Yup copy and paste :)

<shadi> Initial text: [[We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words from academia, industry, and others with interest in website accessibility metrics and quality assurance.]]

Simon: As next Suggested changes from the coordination group

<shadi> Suggested change: [[We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words from research, industry, people with disabilities, and others with interest in mobile web accessibility.]]

<markel> it's also obvious for me

<shadi> [[We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words.

<shadi> OR

<shadi> We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words from anyone with interest in mobile web accessibility. ]]

Simon: SC will make its decision baesd on that

<yeliz> I vote for the first version

<yeliz> I mean I vote for "We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words."

Simon: 3 different contributions : Voting

<markel> I go for "We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words."

<Peter_Thiessen> vote, Option 3 ("We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words. We encourage ...")

<vivienne> I vote for just saying no more than extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words. The rest of the paragraph says that they need to be scientifically sound, so that should rule out inappropriate submissions.

<giorgio> I go for "We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words."

<sharper> RESOLVED: We invite extended research abstracts of no more than 1000 words.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about updated timeline given the delay

<Peter_Thiessen> I'll go ahead and make the wiki change (option 3).

Shadi: a diffferent point: appologize for another delay of a week. How does it affect our schedule?

Simon: when is the call for papers due?

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

<vivienne> it's under important dates at the bottom

<Peter_Thiessen> Good question, hmm

Shadi: could we announce the call in a week? Any ideas?

<Peter_Thiessen> Agree with Yeliz

Yeliz: lookong at the previous call we miss the scientific commitee. We need to extend the introduction. I can provide a version by next week

<Peter_Thiessen> They did a stellar job :)

Simon: suggesstion to use the previous SC?

<yeliz> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/

Simon: Why not?

<vivienne> Yes, I said that I would help

Simon: as chair

<yeliz> Shadi, Giorgio, Joshue, Markel, Vivienne

<Peter_Thiessen> Oh right, yes

Shadi: in one of the prvious minutes. People colunteered e.g. Klaus instead of Mario. Write this in the minutes ..

<Peter_Thiessen> Joint effort? :)

<Peter_Thiessen> I can write it you can edit it? :)

<shadi> +1

<vivienne> yes, that's fine

<markel> I'm fine with that

<giorgio> +1

Yeliz: Inviting one or two people to the SC

Shadi: external people are welcome. If we can recruite them on a short term!
... These people are not only reviewing papers but inreach the discussions at the symposium

<markel> One suggestion: for the future I would leave to the editors the decision of selecting the SC

Shadi: if they do not fit in our timeline the drop is for now

<giorgio> I'm in favor of Markel's proposal.

Simon: We go for SC next week as decided

Yeliz: Alternatively and depending on the number of submissions we can invite other people.

<shadi> suggest saying: [[Others to be announced]]

<yeliz> That's what I thought

<shadi> +1 to outreach argument but caution that it is a double-edged sword

Simon: Recruit people, if we do not get them next week we can have them at later point

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to respond to markel's suggestion

Simon: SC should be open to WG participants,

Shadi: not Simon

<Peter_Thiessen> So the scientific committee is generally restricted to WG participants?

<Peter_Thiessen> ah ok got it

Shadi: careful who you invite - this may add more delay - Some would like to have their names, but would not work!

Yeliz: I would invite only known people who we know that they would involve and work

<Peter_Thiessen> Sounds good Yeliz

<sharper> RESOLVED: Pre Call to become Call text ready for next week - Editors to recruit external scientific committee members.

Shadi: Another point with the timeline. At end of SC others will be announced later, this allows to add people later

<shadi> suggest saying: [[Others to be announced]]

<shadi> ...or such

Simon: Copy right as well for next week

<sharper> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Topic_3_Timeline

<vivienne> thanks all. Talk to you next week.

Simon: timeline for topic three: Shadi will ask Shawn

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/14 16:28:44 $