See also: IRC log
SAZ: feedback from AC that RDWG needs to
demonstrate more value
... and also more relevance to W3C work
... lack of publication of reports is an issue
... people were not able to see the relevance
MH: some of the comments also questioned need for working group as opposed to interest group
AN: what is the difference between WG and IG
<mhakkinen> Interest Groups The primary goal of an Interest Group is to bring together people who wish to evaluate potential Web technologies and policies. An Interest Group is a forum for the exchange of ideas.
<mhakkinen> From: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities
SAZ: IG is more loosely coupled
... WG has more of a core group that builds know-how
... think that aspect worked well
... but didn't do well on finalizing the work and getting results published
VC: been discussing forward nature required
... constantly new developments that need to be addressed
... rather than work on existing specifications
... address challenges before they become barriers
SAZ: IG also don't produce WG notes
... at most IG notes
DS: been thinking about RDWG for my TPG
involvement
... feel mismatch in pace between research and industry development
... the need to gather data in advance of development
... how can we address these gaps?
... RDWG tended to attract academic participants with more longer-term
visions
... also how to involve non-technical people
... RDWG has a potential role there
... driven by demand should have an impact
... symposia tended to focus on what people were interested in, rather than
what is needed
VC: good input
MH: aligns with some of our thoughts for the new charter
DS: happy to share my thoughts with you
... have an email that I can adapt
... if that would help
VC: absolutely
... need to prepare a new draft charter for AC approval
... to address the comments received
SAZ: need to involve the broad spectrum of
"research"
... and turn into a needs-driven model
DS: will also share some thoughts on document
development
... would like to propose some ideas
MH: been thinking about a lighter-weight model of
symposia
... also the ensuing reports
JW: have been fortunate to be involved in some
discussion at CSUN about future WAI developments
... long-term perspective in the context of the three guidelines
... need to be aware of future technologies before they become available
VC: relates to the thoughts of being more forward-thinking
JB: previous attempt as an IG did not work
JB: will be talking with commenters next week
... will be talking with the AC following week
... need to know which items have been agreed to
... maybe have the suggestions in a survey for next week
... and a draft, to get agreement on it by the group
MH: can put out a draft charter in the next
day
... is the charter in member space?
http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/charter4
JB: summary of the elements that the people agreed on?
MH: several ideas suggested
... what is the duration?
JB: initial request for 3 years
... but may be push back
... maybe one year as a start
... to try things out
MH: will need to make sure we are successful for
one-year model
... tips for accessibility-aware research should be manageable
<sloandr> +1 to rapid production of the Tips for accessibility aware research report, Mark!
VC: expect to be spending much of the year
publishing reports
... two years would allow us to do new work too
... to demonstrate future-looking aspect
SAZ: agree that one year would not give us time to demonstrate success
JB: how long would it take to develop a new mode
of work
... and to publish reports
... a year for publishing reports for a year would be too long
<sloandr> +1 to more lightweight symposium research notes, especially given the symposium submissions are already online, and the transcripts from the symposium
JB: have been discussing light-weight model for
reports
... also hearing about interest in new participation
SAZ: have about 8-9 reports to publish
... some have not even seen drafts yet
... even if light-weight, will be very difficult to do in 1 year
... plus accessibility-aware research and other work
JB: will be very difficult to get approval as a
group to publish previous work
... maybe 18-month with light-weight model
... objections to publication of backlog report on a more light-weight
basis
DS: not from me
VC: support it
[no disagreement]
JB: who would support 18-month extension
<sloandr> +1 to 18 months
<annika> +1 to 18 months extension
MH: more realistic
+1 to 18 months (at least)
<Judy> +1 to an 18 month extension
<Vivienne> +1 for 18 month cycle
<mhakkinen> +1
JW: not in group but think a good idea
MH: Please indicate in IRC your support or opposition to including a deliverable on tips for accessibility-aware research
<annika> +1
+101
<Judy> +1 to including the accessibility-aware research tips
<sloandr> +1 to tips for accessibility aware research
<Vivienne> +1 to have the tips for accessible aware research as part of the deliverable
<mhakkinen> On the question of Accessibility AWare REsearch tips, should it be a deliverable in the charter?
<mhakkinen> +1
JW: also as non-participant agree on the need for that
MH: agreement on work focus, to identify knowledge gaps
<mhakkinen> On the question of adding increased emphasis on identifying knowledge gaps impacting W3C technologies and filling those gaps by id'ing research, or research questions, opportunities.
<sloandr> +1 to strategic identification and filling of knowledge gaps
<Vivienne> +1 plus I would like us to identify how the RDWG work can be communicated to other W3C groups
<Judy> +1 also noting that this differentiates RDWG work from APA WG (PFWG) spec reviews; it is the complement to that work
+1 (though hesitant about potential tall order of committing to "filling the gaps")
<sloandr> In response to Shadi, I think identifying and documenting as many gaps as possible is one important job, and prioritising filling in of selected gaps is another job
<Judy> +1 to David's comment about prioritizing, that is a useful element to refine that part of Mark's comment
Thursday same time?
DS: conflict for me
MH: me too on the long-run
DS: prefer to start on-the-hour
<mhakkinen> DS: start on the hour rather than half hour