See also: IRC log
SA: has re-worked the CFP so that it still retains the meaning, but makes it more compact. Has put in some of the objectives that were removed previously
Christos: surprised to see the edit. Concerned
about that we are talking about technologies and this may be discourage some of
the development but doesn't really use web technologies in the core or main
part of the presentation.
... they may have done something new to communicate to direction in a mobile
application, this might discourage me from submitting a paper
... do we want people not to feel encouraged to submit? Shouldn't we leave a
door open to R&D that doesn't use web technologies as the main technology
of the application, but it might be possible to use web technologies in the
future in the application.
SA: maybe I went a bit too far and this might discourage people who aren't developing web applications but it might benefit those who are using web technologies
I only have a minute to read it and would like a minute
Read background for a couple of minutes
I'm happy with the background section, but wonder if the first sentence could be re-worded so that it isn't closed to just 'web technologies'
Annika: like the focus on web technology part. Maybe have web technologies not the first word in this section. Also agree with Christos that '
it's not only about systems already using that technology but also those that are considering web technologies in the future
SA: keep this in mind also for the scope section - also those considerations that can benefit from web technologies rather than those who are currently using them
Christos: I think it is really good and concise. We are working in this domain, using official information from met and hospital with legal implications on accessibility and cloud security. The accessibility of editing function for PWD who can annotate and bring information into a system.
SA: let's look at this in the scope section also
... was trying to describe so many dimensions by using the buzzwords and
wanted it to be more than that
... with regard to the challenges, I tried to frame these in the scope area
and not too much in the background area
Christos: in the background missing systems that let you explore places, accommodation etc.
Is this the trip-planning aspect Christos?
<christos> some how
<christos> like foursquare
<christos> yelp... etc
SA: these bullet points in the background aren't exclusive, you could have an airport system that encompasses more than navigation but also interactive and orientation
I'm having a bit of trouble hearing with the background noises
SA: how does an interactive guide relate to a way-finding system, but something like 'yelp' says whether a restaurant offers a certain type of food
Christos: we can use information that is currently existing ? not sure what else was said here, but Christos' background noise makes it hard to hear
<shadi> "Examples of web-based maps, crowd-sourced reviews, and public data with accessibility information demonstrate the use of the Web to augment the physical world"
SA: : different from repositors with information and how that can be used in a way-finding sy normation
Annika: these are sources of information - like a database
SA: Christos did you want this incorporated more?
<klaus> have to leave, sorry, All the best!
look at scope section now - there are the 3 area we agreed on
Sorry, someone better take over minuting as my system keeps freezing
<christos> What types of web-based data sources provide or can provide accessibility-related information? What types of formats and APIs do they use? -> What types of data sources provide or can provide accessibility-related information? What types of formats and APIs do they use?
<christos> or maybe
christos: Move "web-based" to the end of the sentence "What kinds of technologies, systems, and applications entail potential benefits for accessible way-finding and how can web technologies support this?"
<christos> What types of data sources provide or can provide accessibility-related information and how web technologies relate to that? What types of formats and APIs do they use?
annika: In the user interfaces section, change wording to include other technologies not only web.
shadi: suggest to remove "web" in "How well do web technologies such as WAI-ARIA and IndieUI address accessibility requirements in way-finding systems, and what gaps exist, if any? ".
annika +1
christos: Add this as additional question: "how can web technologies support ...?" rather than mentioning "web technologies" as the main topic.
shadi: will rewrite these section to tone down the "web technologies" aspect.
Vivienne: We need to tone down the web
technologies.
... The data is a big concern. We need to get the CfP out soon.
... Suggest to ask the other RWGW members by email. So that we can get the CfP
out before the next meeting.
shadi: Other comments?
christos: It's ok.
shadi: Is the topic 4square, yelp etc. addresse sufficiently?
christos: Please add a reference to crowd sourcing in the data sources section.
shadi: ok.
... we can add crowd sourcing explicitly in the data sources section.
christos: Add "examples of data sources could be web-based data sources, crowd sourcing, etc."
shadi: "web-based" will be removed anyway.
<christos> What types of data sources (annotations, web-based, crowd-sourced, etc) provide or can provide accessibility-related information?
shadi: Agree that social media are important but we should not put too much weight on it.
annika: we could mention "data sources and way of data collection".
<christos> +1
shadi: Ok, let's put that buzz word (data
collection) in again.
... There are also some edits to the introduction.
... Let's look at the timeline.
... We don't have enough people on the call today to decide on the CfP.
... We will send the updated CfP to the group for approval by Friday.
... That means we can announce the CfP on Tuesday.
christos: Tuesday is no problem.
shadi: Ok, the CfP will be announced on Tue 16th.
... That means 4.5 weeks for submission.
... Are we fine with this?
... Should we push it by one week?
christos: We could push the dates by 3-4 days and
still do the symposion on the 3rd Dec.
... Five week should be sufficient at this time of year.
shadi: Ok, then we keep the deadlines as they are.
annika: If some people request, we can give them a few more days for the submission.
shadi: the only thing that can't be changed is
the symposium date.
... Some submission will be very bad html.
... That means additional work for the editors.
... The elearning used a word template that could be converted into html.
... html tends to be worse the word.
christos: ok. I've been there ...
... We can manage that.
<Vivienne> I'd like to keep the symposeium on the 3 December because it's a good date to hold it
<Vivienne> Sorry, I'm back. I've heard everything but couldn't respond.
<Vivienne> I'm sure we'll be okay with the work involved with converting into HTML.
annika: yes, we should be abele to manage the html part.
<Vivienne> I'm also wanting to keep to the December 3 deadline.