Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

Text Cust. CfP Approval (5m) -http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Text_Customization_Symposium_draft_page#Call_for_Papers_2

http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Text_Customization_Symposium_draft_page

SLH: things changed quite a bit
... co-chairs provided excellent and significant suggestions
... thanks to several from the group who provided input too
... page has several sections
... what is on the main page, CfP page, and CfP email
... a couple of points still open for discussion

SH: what is open?

SLH: question on user groups and terminology
... need to be very sensitive
... want to get input on that

LR: reply to my comments is fine
... may be good to use "reading disabilities"

<shawn> saz: coming along excellent. kudos - esp to co-chairs

<shawn> ... beginning catchy words really nice - easy to skim & get overview

<shawn> .. plus other refinements

<shawn> exclustion on optimum format

<shawn> what are personalize requirements. not sufficiently clear.

<Luz> Agree.

SLH: assumption is that there is no single optimum font

<shawn> "The following are out of scope of this topic: what is the optimum font and format for default text"

<shawn> SAZ: request clarification

SLH: do we need to explain why it is out of scope versus what we mean by that

<Luz> Yes, maybe a link to http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Text_Customization#The_Need_for_Text_Customisation would help.

VC: perhaps an extra sentence explaining why it is not in scope

SLH: Luz also suggests linking to the background

<shawn> slh: agree. will do.

"which of these are necessary requirements for people to be able to read text, and which are optional suggestions to improve readability."

<shawn> saz: request calrification to ^^^

<shawn> ... effectively

SAZ: maybe separate between "accessibility need" and "general usability"

SLH: wondering about relative priority
... for example, what WCAG level would it have?

VC: seen something about that in SortSite

<shawn> [that wording is from WCAG 1 priority A, AA, AAA ;-]

VC: differentiate between levels and impact on users

GB: do we need to make that kind of distinction?
... accessibility requirements are contextual

<yeliz> I agree with Giorgio

<markel> +1

<yeliz> +1

GB: artificial to try to classify

+1

<shawn> humm, interesting point

<yeliz> Me too, I wouldn't write them

scribe: I would try to stay away

SH: spent a lot of time refining this
... the more time we spend on this, the less time we have for people to submit

<yeliz> +1

<yeliz> no

SH: not sure that the benefit of these changes is worth the delay

<markel> no

<yeliz> I think it's ready

<yeliz> +1

<giorgio> no

<klaus> +1

<christos> no

<Justin_Brown> no

<sharper> no

<shawn> SH: Do we want to see this again before it goes out ^^^

<peter> undecided :-)

SLH: can we spend some more time on this?

<giorgio> yes, I would delet them

SLH: should we delete "and which are optional suggestions to improve readability." all together?

<yeliz> me too

<yeliz> +1

<sharper> yes

<Justin_Brown> +1

+1

<shawn> saz: have put a lot of work. has really matured over the last week.

<shawn> ... however, important to have polished calls. they set the tone & frame the following work

<shawn> ... maybe as group, we should review things earlier

<shawn> ... get this kind of input earlier. get ourselves to review things in more detail -- thinking ahead for the upcoming topics

<shawn> ... caution against putting out things that are not well reviwed and maybe less quality , or even conflicting statements or confusing

<shawn> ... will impact quality of papers submissions and symposium

SH: at a certain point the improvements become quite minute
... glad to see that it is ready to go
... will be a good template for next calls

RESOLUTION: CfP ready to go with minor edits, group does not need to see it again

E2R CfP Discussion (25m) - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Topic_4_pre-call

KM: restarted working on Easy to Read
... looking at model setup by Shawn
... gathering Scientific Committee
... focus relates to use of language
... trying to structure what papers we want to see
... looking at what guidelines are there
... and seeing how they could be integrated into standards such as those from WAI

<peter> (I would like it to be noted on record that my computer hates me deeply)

KM: also looking at tools, audio-display, use of symbols, use of pictures, and multimedia
... practice and learning
... and finally to look at commonality across different languages

MV: like the comprehensive list of topics
... but drawing attention and some minor issues
... terminology issue between "tools" and "metrics" to measure readability
... also Flesh and others may have come from an educational context rather than from accessibility/usability

<markel> Gunning Fog

MV: otherwise looking quite good

<vivienne> Here's some info on the levels Markel mentioned: http://juicystudio.com/services/readability.php

SH: like structure and like the contents
... may need to be contracted a little

<markel> Flesh-Kincaid instead of Flesh,Kincaid

SH: list of topics could be tightened a little
... would like to see how this would look in Shawn's new format
... maybe slightly abbreviated

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say perhaps it's too broad? maybe more focused?

<shawn> plain langague

SLH: highlighting key points helps skimming
... but may need some more focusing
... was also looking for "plain language" buzz-word

<peter> *exactly* (better late than never)

<shawn> saz: [@@] ... maybe categorize - prioritize (no, that's not quite right :)...

<shawn> .. structure to help people get an overview

<shawn> what's the goal? what do we want to achieve with this symposium. figure that out, then work from there

SH: [reads out objectives]

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Topic_4_pre-call#Objectives

KM: would be happy to say it
... topics were compiled
... wondered if we should restrict the list
... think the core goal would be to come up with a common understanding of what easy-to-read is
... and think about how to integrate them into standards
... because developers are required to deliver easy-to-read
... also the topic of "practice" seems important
... to get people who actually do easy-to-read in practice to give us their experience

+1

<shawn> [ /me really interested what papers will come in on this! I think will want to group papers into subtopics for the symposium and proably proceedings. (... also glad that we decided to do text custmoization separately so it doesn't get lost in this broad topic :-)]

<shawn> saz: agree with that as main focus & goals. bring diff people together, including practioners. develop common understanding of what is e2r in the first place

<shawn> ... if we agre that is the goal of the symposium?

<shawn> boundaires of e2r

<shawn> that would help when we are reviewing this draft

<shawn> sh: objectives not really boundaries now

<shawn> saz: maybe boundaries not the right word. [@@misssed]

<shawn> different ways to look at this

<shawn> look at different aspects (e.g., tools, etc.) - but always towards a specific goal

SH: agree that this is the focus?

KM: yes, agree to it very much

SH: can we get an update by next week?

KM: will try to send out an update by the end of this week, and ask the group to provide feedback

SH: would like to get this in good shape by next week's meeting
... dedicate most of next meeting to finishing this

TC and E2R Timelines Approval(10m)

<peter> (did we cover the mobile note? or did anyone ask)

<klaus> sorry have to leave - bye

Metrics W3C Note Status Approval (5m)

<giorgio> it's ok for me.

<markel> no objections from me