Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

<Vivienne> agenda: review of the draft charter submission

<Vivienne> agenda: how to engage the WAI IG in our work

<Vivienne> agenda: accreditation catalogue entry

shadi: no updates on charter renewal to report. There will be a discussion on WAI charters tomorrow, which includes considering options for reorganising WAI working groups.

<Vivienne> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/charter4

mhakkinen: Is there a set time and communication channel for remote contribution to discussion on this charter tomorrow? shadi: for participation from AC members, yes there is.

vivienne: updated charter available online has incorporated feedback from Judy and others. RDWG members encouraged to have a look at the latest draft.
... focus has moved to encouraging conducting research that will have direct positive impact on W3C activities.

mhakkinen: important to underline that renewed charter proposes an 18 month charter

vivienne: charter has updated language on delivery of symposium reports, with focus on brevity, in order to increase chances of reports being published in a timely fashion

mhakkinen: charter draft is publicly available, and is not expected to change significantly before being put to AC for feedback

shadi: not sure how much discussion will be possible tomorrow during TPAC meeting, but approval process expected by end of May, as this is when current charter expires.
... if approval for continuation is not secured by end of May, group may go into limbo status, but keen to avoid this outcome

agenda item: how to engage WAI Interest Group in our work

vivienne: looking for ideas on how RDWG can engage the WAI Interest Group better than we have been, beyond timely publication of Research Notes
... how do we get input on e.g. definition and prioritisiation of research topics?

mhakkinen: WAI-IG has 800+ subscribers to the mailing list. Topics range from 'newbie' questions on accessibility to much more in-depth discussion, with a lot of expertise there, which could be a valuable sources of informed opinion.

<Vivienne> sloan: perhaps a survey that asks people for their priorities, their top research topics required and get a sense from the wider community of where people need to learn more. This will reflect their current position and what work they are doing

<Vivienne> sloan: didn't renew subscription to IG list because of the copious mail that comes through on the different topics

<Vivienne> sloan: WebAIM list also has high traffic and we could look at the relevance and amount of interest

<Yehya> +1

<annika> +1

<shadi> +1

<Vivienne> 1

mhakkinen: how many people on this call are on WAI-IG list? Number of +1s above indicate most

shadi: WAI-IG is very heterogeneous. Participants range from people new to accessibility to very senior, networked people in accessibility
... question is how to leverage research interests and connections amongst WAI-IG participants?
... WAI-IG list has been focus of requests for feedback, examples (e.g. use cases) as part of previous projects

vivienne: emphasis in IG discussion is often on existing technologies and problems with them, when one of the main points of the new RDWG charter is a focus on emerging technologies and accessibility, so need more input on that topic

yehya: we could post RDWG activity results, discussion items etc on the WAI-IG list to raise awareness

shadi: we could ask for feedback on the Research Catalog, especially missing topics. It could be moved to another W3C space where it's more prominent

<Vivienne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Research_Catalogue

shadi: RDWG needs to do the work to prepare the Catalog to be in a state that encourages good quality feedback on content

vivienne: needs a bit of work to organise the Catalog in preparation for inviting wider feedback

annika: idea of discussing specific catalog topics is good, needs wider contribution. Could we invite IG participants to RDWG discussions?

shadi: opening discussions needs to be aware of concerns over IP and copyright, and that discussions will not directly feed into e.g. a WG Note

<Vivienne> shadi: different from inviting someone to a one-off meeting where everything is publicly minuted

apologies, I lost my network connection there

calling back in…

shadi: two ways to invite external participation to RDWG groups
... 1. we can invite selected experts to participate in a meeting, under a very specific scope/framework
... 2. we organise what we call an open discussion (or similar) where we can invite participation. This would require dedicated minuting and captioning, so we had a clear record of who said what and when
... option 2 needs careful tracking of ideas that are expressed during discussions
... option 2 is almost like a lightweight symposium

<Vivienne> sloan: perhaps a survey first to see how much interest, so the discussion would follow from the survey

this kind of activity inviting participation will help raise awareness of RDWG's existence and role within WAI activity, and encourage greater participation

<shadi> +1 to yehya -- must have results and outcomes

<Vivienne> +1

yehya: the idea of a lightweight symposium is good, but in addition to minuting and captioning, there need to be conscious effort in producing a timely description of outcomes of the discussion

+1 to yehya's observation

annika: +1 to discussion idea

<Vivienne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Accreditation

Agenda item: Accreditation

vivienne: have reformatted the summary of the accreditation discussion. The idea is that this becomes a template for other catalog topics
... RDWG members encouraged to review the Accreditation discussion topic, especially Challenges and Opportunities. Is this an appropriate way of summarising current state and research directions?
... also added a section on related W3C activities, which is intended to help address the need to make connections between research topics and other W3C activity
... will send out a survey to collect feedback on this document