Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

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

<klaus> https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Catalogue_Topics

we also have this one: https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Research_Topics

are we looking at the research topics or the symposia

SA: we don't yet have a definition

SA: symposium topics would start as catalogue topics
... catalogue - broader and more general
... symposium topic - more focussed more specifically
... need to come up with definitions and get agreement from the group

wiki page could define the terms

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

great, there is yet another term "cataloge of research topics" - combines both symposium and catalogue

MH: like the short, medium, long-term topics

KM: issue - struggling in bringing down ideas to the level they could be considered for symposia
... the catalogue of topics should be more structured so where people can work on them toward a seminar

MH: rather than re-group topics - get people into groups to work on topics to get them ready for symposia

SA: would remove the catalogue type of idea and make the topics just headed for symposia

KM: catalogue is not going anywhere

SA: is the problem the idea or the implementation
... is the wiki a repository of research topics that are relevant to accessibility. Will researchers look to is to see how they can contribute

KM: we aren't able to assign people to the topics yet
... might be an approach to build up groups which focus on certain topics and they can invite colleagues to contribute

MH: next step is to put the current topics identified to a poll to see who wants to step up and work on topics

KM: first step would be that they would brush up the catalogue topic and then spread the information - calling for people, projects, activities related to this topic. If no one feels responsible for a topic, it won't happen

MH: if we do put out the poll with the current topic list and get responses to say 10/x people. Do we take the non-responsive topics and put them in a shelved topics list?
... we're having a hard time pulling people into the meetings. How do we expand it? Do we share the poll more widely?

SA: can look at working with the larger community, may be some mechanics involved. We are focusing more on the mechanics than what we want to achieve? What are we expecting the people who put their names on the topics? symposia or working on the catalogue topic?

MH: 2 steps - some critical mass to work on each topic and then some mechanism to see if any of the topics can graduate from catalogue to a symposium

SA: Klaus wonders if there is enough incentive for someone to write up a catalogue topic if it isn't going to get to a symposium?

KM: there is a chance that there might be a research symposium later - perhaps we could make it more interesting - make activities with a possibility to publish at the WWW conference. REsearchers are interested in publishing.

MH: agree with Klaus' view

KM: perhaps consider publishing the catalogue with the items in a compendium - a publication

SA: research topics published as a publication?

KM: would be interesting for them. Could become something like an open-access online journal

SA: is in the charter - research catalogue would be a bigger benefit to community than the symposia. Catalogue would a bigger service - research challenges for accessibility
... like the idea of online publication - mention people who are contributing

MH: try to find a way to link the catalogue - would be a real win

Sa: Mark, how would a research topic be referenced?

MH: looking at specific standards development - UA vendors etc need to understand where the opportunities are to apply the research opportunities are. When they are working on a new recommendation, they can look up the challenges etc.
... could be a value to W3C

https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Accreditation

have done a re-write of the accreditation one - hope it meets the ideas we have just discussed

SA: symposium is backward looking, whereas the catalogue topic is more forward-looking
... explore using the wiki as a playground to create topics, review etc. Once they are finished, look at a more formal way to publish it - perhaps a working group note that is continually updated

<mhakkinen> +q

SA: maybe associate the people with each topic they have contributed to - added incentive - be recognised as someone with research expertise in the field an can be contacted

MH: is there any precedence of these kind of working group notes? Can a single note get too unwieldy and should be there multiple notes for each topic?

SA: technique documents are multi-page notes, and there are other examples. Have an entry note - overview listing topics and links to other topics
... precedent? closest is the requirements analysis, WAI did accessibility notes for HTML - looking at what needs to happen
... RDWG is unique and may break new ground

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/HTML4-access

MH: more research-focused notes?

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/

SA: could also be a WAI-style? as the how people use the web
... some people find this easier to use - easier to navigate
... is moving away from wiki to something with a more formal standing, and perhaps have more credibility

MH: there is a page about using WAI materials
... look at what is the next step. Take the list of topics and design a poll and allow us to gauge people's interest and getting them to commit to working on a topic

SA: is there a need to re-discuss with the group or remind them what we think catalogue topics are and are not, and what we want to achieve with the surveys
... might get more ideas and input and allow them to get an overview of what we want to achieve with the survey

MH: we do the survey which is a shared concensus on the research topics, starting with the current FAQ about the catalogue?

SA: could be as short as a sentence/question - research topics are intended to be part of a catalogue
... could have the question about the current definition

MH: is there an update on the charter approval?

SA: no, not yet

MH: anything in the charter that is different in the definition?

Sa: don't think so
... don't want to restrict ourselves to what we can do with the current group

MH: do we need to re-visit meeting times?

SA: can look at it - either check in with people and ask them about missing meetings reasons. If it is meeting time - can try to re-schedule
... we are also transitioning the group, new co-chairs talk about how we'd like the group to work. Try to pull them in and help them see what it can be as opposed to administrative meetings. They have perhaps lost the overall mission of the group

MH: spending the time in administrative work is not a good use of their time

Sa: have held discussion sessions - after a draft write-up, look for caps in research challenges etc

MH: need to liven u the discussions alternating between practical review of outstanding and a discussion that is purely focussed as a research discussion

SA: can do the survey when MH & VC put together questions

MH: use tomorrow's coordination time to finalise next survey

Vivienne's skype name: vivienne_conway

MH: shall we create the survey and edit it? if you give us the link, we can try to do it

<shadi> www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-170215

Sa: need to get access to survey tool
... discuss goals of group and how we are going to achieve them

SA: to advise about survey access

tomorrow 9:15 us