W3C

Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

04 Sep 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Markku, Vivienne, Silvia, Shadi, Klaus, Christos, Yehya
Regrets
Simon, Annika, Giorgio, Markel, David, Peter, Luz
Chair
Shadi
Scribe
Markku

Contents


Next Topic Discussion

shadi: Next topic discussion. Calls on Justin and Silvia

silvia: we propose eLearning Accessibility. Symposium in mid-December. Will feed the Wiki. The idea is to have the CFP in a couple of weeks.

shadi: Early announcement would be great.

vivienne: concerned about mid-December date. Perhaps a couple of weeks earlier?

<Vivienne> the International day of people with disabilities is December 3

silvia: suggests Dec 9

justin: also suggests Dec 9

<Vivienne> December 9 sounds great

+1

<silvia_mirri> ok!

<Justin> +1

<Klaus> +1

<christos> +1

<Yehya> +1

shadi: Dec 9 is the proposed date.

<silvia_mirri> ok!

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

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

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

shadi: identifying templates for symposium CFP, announcement, and symposium itself. This is what will be reviewed by the wg and cg.

Alternate Weekly Research - Accreditation of Websites for

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

shadi: discuss initially as a small group and then potentially bring in external participants. Look ahead and develop/exchange knowledge for future topics. First topic is accreditation of Web Sites, proposed by Vivienne.

vivienne: focus on history, current practice, and future. Asks group to take a look.

<Vivienne> Accreditation is closely bounded by accessibility testing. As a result, all the strengths and weaknesses of accessibility testing are inherited by accreditation methods. To name a few weaknesses:

<Vivienne> - The lack of empirical validity on guidelines.

<Vivienne> - The lack of coverage of guidelines. (see the CHI paper by Power et al in 2012)

<Vivienne> - The over-reliance on tools, which perform badly and rely on dubious guidelines (see our W4A paper)

<Vivienne> - The problem of reaching an agreement with manual reviews (see Brajnik et al. HCI journal paper)

<Vivienne> - The problems of sampling (see Brajniks paper of ASSETS 2007 about sampling methods)

<Vivienne> - etc.

<Vivienne> I miss some scientific references in the wiki too.

vivienne: markel has provided comments and suggestions. (pasted into IRC)

shadi: take a 5 minute reading break to review.

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

+q

<shadi> Mark: does accreditation actually ensure usable end-results?

vivienne: 4,7,11 may apply to usability. Will try to adjust questions to address.

klaus: in terms of references. Other standards, ISO, BS.

vivienne: any questions that should be removed?

klaus: no. maybe look at prioritization.

silvia: how to certificate the process for site creation?

vivienne: doesn't BS8788 do this?
... is there anything else that addresses process certification?

<shadi> http://www.econformance.eu/

shadi: wcag2 conformance section does mention process that can help meet wcag. you should have a quality assurance process in place.
... EU m376 (eu version of 508) researched some of this. The question is "what do we really mean by certification?" post development certification, 3rd party certification. Or do we want to be broader? At this stage, we need to decide on the focus, whether on post dev 3rd party certification vs the broader view.

vivienne: we only have an hour, and though would like the broader view, we should focus on the 3rd party accreditation.

shadi: intro should be clear on focus.

vivienne: will adjust intro to indicate the hour session will focus on 3rd party accreditation.

shadi: questions needs to be clear as to focus. self declaration vs 3rd party. Think there are some papers on this topic.

vivienne: yes, research from UK.

shadi: might be work out there that we are not aware of.

vivienne: will add suzette keith (middlesex u) research.

shadi: questions related to W3C and WAI on accreditation (17-19) should probably state 3rd party accreditation.
... any other questions? This is a good topic.

vivienne: invite judy and shawn to discussion?

shadi: shawn is a member of the group. maybe important to invite others, not just judy. be considerate of scheduling. clear on who we invite and why we think their participation is important.

vivienne: vivienne will send invite to judy.

mhakkinen: edupub workshop http://idpf.org/edupub-2013

Symposia Timeline http://goo.gl/xK4euz

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

shadi: suggest to look closely at the timeline, especially the time between review feedback and final papers

Vivienne: also 12 weeks is already next week!

<Justin> we'll be right mate

PENDING - User Modelling W3C Note Status

Yehya: transcript was published and authors were notified
... preparing Editor Draft for end-September as agreed

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-09-04 16:27:14 $