Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

16 Oct 2013

See also: IRC log


Vivienne, Justin, DaveS, Shadi, sharper
Yeliz, Klaus, Kerstin, Luz, Giorgio, Silvia, Mark, Christos, Markel, Peter


Accreditation of Websites survey and progress

<sharper_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/AccMethods/results

SH: discussion on survey, people have been emailed about responding
... outcome is that we have 6 people saying no more to discuss, and 5 who say there is more to discuss, 6 - internal only, others say we have sufficient to say to bring in invited experts
... there seems to be some kind of desire for people to have another crack at this as part of the catalogue and that there isn't a desire to make it a symposium topic
... 6 say there is no more to do and 6 say there is more to do, and 6 say to discuss further with more experts
... do all concur that we ought to at the minimum to have a meeting about it to get some focus and then move on to an internal invited experts to participate
... view from others?

SA: found survey a good mechanism to get input
... could have another question about 'there is more to discuss but not a priority for now'. I put that in the comments, that it's a very interesting discussion to talk about certification and accreditation. It was a good debate, but doesn't really fit the scientific discussion we need to have in RDWG. Our priority should be the other things we have in the charter.

DS: agree with Shadi, I thought we could talk about it more and invite others but not at the expense of others.
... changing view from the survey to support Shadi's perspective as we have so many other topics to cover. A short write-up of the discussion as we had it and identify the research questions to be answered. That way we can put it in the catalogue and move on to other topics.

SH: more comments?
... we have both time and resources constraints. We need volunteers to move forward for a topic discussion and also to arrange the next symposium after Sylvia and Justin's topic. We have a desire to talk about reserch every 2 weeks. We need to have resources, people who are willing to lead those topics.
... would people be happy to say to write this up now, or do we want to put a pin in it and might want to come back to discuss this topic later?

<Justin> Write up

SH: it's possible to start writing it up in the catalogue

SA: like Dave's suggestion of doing both - start writing up what we've got and then try to move on
... first thing: next symposium - need more resources and recruiting to get people to devote their time
... next thing: next research discussion - should ask people rather than waiting for people to volunteer
... we can work in a similar manner to the scribe list - ask each person to hold one of those bi-weekly discussions - a research topic they are working on. They can introduce it and get input from the grup. We have a lot of people in the group working on different topics. This would help us get catalogue items completed.

VC: I like that idea Shadi

SH: RESOLVE: that we're going to write up the accreditation as a catalogue item and will still look at the possibility of continuing later

SA: can we approach people to get them to do a similar one. Dave, would you be interested in organising a bi-weekly discussion?

SA: one of the ideas last week was that Dave could organise a discussion on the tips for accessibility aware research that he's working on

DS: I've got a busy schedule till mid-november but after that I'd be happy to lead a discussion on the tips for accessibility aware research. Agree that a call for paricipatio for these discussions would help research understand the expectations and what they'd get out of it
... would help people to see what RDWG does - here's an opportunity to put your research in frontof RDGW and see how it could impact on the members of the group

SH: the catalogue items are supposed to be those we decide are important to the group internally
... we have a finite number of members and it is going to be difficult to get people to step up to it, but we could solicit people more directly

<sharper_> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Advice_for_Organisers_of_Catalogue_Topic_Discussions

DS: it would be of value to the group to have a formal agreed statement of the return on their investment of their time etc - what they get out of it and what it takes for the discussion. Would describe the value of getting involved.

SH: should we add more to the WIKI?

DS: it should point people to the discussions

JB: need to form a scientific committee to get the call out

SA: got final text on Thursday so we have a 5 day internally for review and approval of announcement

E-Learning Symposium Progress http://goo.gl/bbjL92

SA: hope to wrap it up today and send out the call
... deadline is the 4th November - 2 weeks
... announcement is ready and being reviewed

JB: time is a concern

SA: Simon, any suggestions?

SH: we can look at doing it after Christmas, early January

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2013/e-learning/cfp#dates

That's summer holidays here, Simon

SH: January might be more practical

JB: would we push the call out, or keep the timelines

SH: I think we can put the call out now, but leave them more time to submit
... paperdeadline before Christmas and get it to reviewers before Christmas

JB: Friday Decem 20 for a month I'll be away

SA: if we push it to Dec 16th that's too close to Christmas
... registration is currently 25 November, but could change that to the Monday?
... worth considering thoughts on how widely we can promote this?

JB: people at university here are busy at that time marking for end of year

SH: we could push it to Dec 16th if we want to
... would people still be available on the 16th?

DS: focus on MOOCS as a target of discussion we also need to be looking at education providers where there isn't a semester restriction. If the submitters are academics they have different timetables than the non-academics.
... we can try to market this to people who would not be in education but in commercial
... practical logistics - shouldn't underestimate the time required to review the successful submissions and put together an agenda or order for discussion that is cohesive and allows you as symposium facilitators is to help you write up the research that comes out of it
... the preparation of this is well worth the effort, and needs to be worked into the schedule - takes quite a bit of time

JB: if we can extend the call a bit so that the symposium is Dec. 16 would be good as that would mean not working over the Christmas holidays

SH: if we don't do it on the 16th, then it's too close to Christmas and it would need to be after February 10th. We would have lost focus/momentum if we wait that long.

SA: Let's work with that - 16th for potential symposium date, open registration on the 9th December (1 week before), 4 days left over a weekend to get them online for 6th December.
... would you still have students available to clean up the HTML?

JB: yes, that's fine

SA: you only have 2 weeks between deadline for paper submissions and author notification. That's the absolute minimum in light of what Dave was saying as you'll need to chase up scientific review members to review etc. That takes quite a bit of time. That puts you in the middle of marking time.

JB: that's at the better end of November - most marking is done by then

SA: call for papers would go out today and we could also make the deadline of November 18th. It would give them a full month. Or you could make the deadline November 15th (Friday) and allow them the weekend if required.

SH: sounds good

<DaveS> +1

SA: deadline November 15, author notification December 2nd?
... author notification would be November 29th?
... leave 2 weeks Nov. 18-Nov.29 - need to make sure JB & Syvia and scientific committee are ready and able to meet the deadline.

JB: can we make it Dec. 2nd for author notification?

SA: you'd only have 1 week to address the comments to have it back by Dec. 6th
... 6th December is the deadline, 9th December registration opens. People are always late and always ask for extensions. Chances of having it all in on time are slight.

JB: just have to do it and see and hope for the best

SA: it's the only option, either that or move it to February

JB: will confirm with Sylvia, but I thnk we need to just get on with it

SH: seems to be the best way. Good to get everything sorted by Christmas

You'd have trouble getting people in Australia to do work over December/January

JB: will contact Silvia right away and let you know

Next Catalogue Topic

SH: David will work on the tips for accessibility research
... Charter - don't have the latest on it, internally - has been accepted and we're operating under our previous charter. Charter is out of review for the AP right now - progress is quite slow
... concerned about the notes we need to get out - need to focus on how to get these out
... update on first 2 notes. They are both on my desk. We have comments on the mobile accessibility that need to sent to the editors for discussion - mainly minor. Should be able to close that out fairly soon. For the mobile note it's on my desk and I haven't had time to check how the comments were addressed. There are some delicate comments about WCAG guidelines and mobile and I have to do

this - it's sensitive work. Hope that by next week we have more updates on this.

DS: update on text customisation. Have addressed the lack of progress - inability to contact with Shawn. Need to identify a clear plan of action to work on the current draft which is quite messy and needs to be cleaned up. It's on the top of my list to make contact with Shawn and get the division of tasks clear.

SH: away next week, SA also away.

Next week's meeting is cancelled.

SH: add material to WIKI to update the material
... not to put the notes on the wiki - want them to go to the catalogue.

SA: sounds reasonable - put transcript into an html page. Think we can lock the pages and look at a home for it. With regard to the output - create a blurb for the catalogue item. Use that first topic to work out how those catalogue items should look. We've had ideas about metadata, title, abstract so will need to go over that several times.

SH: can't make actual transcript public without people's consent. Need to write to people and ask if we can make the discussion not-anonymous

SA: you'd need to give each person the opportunity to review what they said
... we can ask them if they object, but they might ask to see what they said

SH: transcript is there not to be published publicly - but so Vivienne can back up what she says in the summary. We can privately discuss with them if they disagree with the content.

SH & SA: summary is no problem and discuss it - transcript is just proof.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-10-18 12:40:12 $