Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

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

<mhakkinen> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/chart/results?view=compact

Will look at the table of the responses and walk through them

Judy's comment is a wording change to last sentence

Mark: Klaus statement about re-working second sentence.

DS: secnd sentence talks about 'filling gaps' is overly ambitious - modify to 'identy strategies to filling these gaps' or similar. We can't always fill the gaps.

MH: missed the comment about filling gaps, will amend this

DS proposal is "identify strategies to fill gaps"

<sloandr> second sentence suggestion? RDWG works within W3C and externally with the accessibility research community to develop strategies for prioritising work to fill these gaps

MH: take David's second suggestion and work with that

<mhakkinen> RDWG works within W3C and externally with the accessibility research community to develop strategies for prioritising and undertaking work, when possible, to fill these gaps.

<shadi-out> [[maybe "address" or "help address" instead of "fill"?]]

<mhakkinen> RDWG works within W3C and externally with the accessibility research community to develop strategies to address these gaps.

please put a +1 for adopting above

+1

<annika> +1

<peter_thiessen> +1

<klaus> +1

<sloandr> +1

<mhakkinen> +1

<shadi-out> +1

MH: Klaus is more needed?

Klaus: well-covered now
... sentence is agreed now

Scope: MH reviewed comments in survey

DS: clarification on comment about clearing huse - also refers to Annika's comment. We would be creating a clearing house as there isn't one already. Agree with Annika as there is an opportunity to list those people who are tackling different research areas. Helps with the gap-filling challenge. RDWG can be a connection between current research questins and the people who are working on them
... perhaps add a comment about what the clearing house concept would look like - perhaps change the word

MH: it is in the scope on researchers/research opportunities - could put notes in the deliverables section about this

AN: to clarify comment on researchers' names. We are not doing this at the moment, and need to decide if we want to take this on. If we aren't taking this on, shouldn't refer to it.

MH: could be in the re-chartering in the future. In work we should be listing researchers who can be contacted for further information.
... Judy's comments are editorial/wordsmithing. Are there other scope comments to be made here? Should we make the scope sound less ambitious.

We shouldn't put in thngs we can't do within the 18 mnths

MH: changes to Charter will get posted in next day

Judy: will be sending out updated snapshots to AC commenters later today - hope to include a link to the updated charter

MH: concern expressed is potential putting something down in scope that is overly ambitious. Judy's suggestion of 'brief' in frnt of note
... notes will be WG notes and not W3C notes

Judy: notes may be something that would be too difficult

MH: Klaus pointed out that there are more scope bullet points than deliverables - don't necessarily line up - do they need to?

Judy: helpful to align. Need to have clear Charter with credible scope of work, so that the work can continue.
... discussion about whether this should be combined with APA Working Group. This group complements that other work, but may be difficult to combine..

MH: David's comment about symposia.

DS: comment was about selection of topics for upcoming symposia. Topics are chosen strategically to complement and support other W3C activity. Up until now topics have to a large extent been chosen withn RDWG rather than encouraged by other groups. Can we make that link more explicit - that we will have sympsia on areas that are more critical to other groups - group output would be more helpful

to other groups

<Judy> +1 to David's observation and suggestion

DS: to some extent it has been driven by researcher's interests rather than need
... subjects should be chosen strategically and this link could be clearer

+1 from me also

<mhakkinen> +1

<peter_thiessen> +1

<klaus> +1

<annika> +1

<Judy> s/so that work can continue/if this group is going to be able to continue. There are some reviewers who felt it should be closed, or merged into WAI IG or APA WG; but also counter-concerns./

Jonathan: output from symposia - synopsis

MH: driving to keep actual summary work as brief and concise as possible

Jonathan: don't want to be reading some one else's commentary on the document

<mhakkinen> Jason (not Jonathan) made the comments

MH: confusion about clearing house and catalogue - others also commented on this. Any thoughts on clearing house?

Judy: clearing house implies something more active than catalogue which sounds static

MH: Judy, any comments from others about clearinghouse?

Judy: is a lot of difficulty in AC in understanding what the purpose of the group has been, and what it does. Hope is that Charter updates will help that - but on this deliverable there is a hgh risk that people won't understand the intent partly because it is very different from other W3C work and because of some of the inconsistencies in explanation

DS: RDWG's unique function within W3C. It may be that research relates to different disciplines - bringing those disparate subject or domains together to contribute more to W3C standards activity needs a more concerted effort which is what RDWG can do - connecting the research communty. That is different to other connections between academic research and W3C which is often more computer

science/mathematics focussed.

DS: this is one major sellng point for those who aren't convnced about the need for RDWG
... this could be somewhere in the Charter - who we see as the research community that we want to harness and take part and get involved

MH: tried to bring in more reference to industry and industry research - the different types of contributors in the research community would be useful

Judy: this could be useful to add - emphasizing bring those entities together. Other groups were academically focussed and the current charter mentions the different communities - need to state that we could bring the groups together and look at those that are standard-related and the industry-related

DS: research communities may be defined by topic and discipline, or interest. There is an opportunity to bring it all togehter.

<mhakkinen> +1

+1

<peter_thiessen> +1

MH: will take it as an action to affect the changes discussed today and incorporate David and Judy's comments. May request clarification.

Judy: the end section of the Charter which denotes changes - show changes since the first draft and this last one. Right now it doesn't convey the primary changes well. Need to show how they address the concerns raised. Include a shorter charter period, diff can be made available, printing the updated URL

MH: key points - chartering duration and other points - will try to get those in

Judy: what is the group's intention for voting for updating the proposed changes. Would like to get it in for review hopefully by the end of this week.

<sloandr> +1 happy to review an updated draft tomorrow

MH: who can give feedback on changes by Friday morning

+1

<peter_thiessen> +1

<annika> +1

<Judy> +1 happy to review an updated draft

<shadi-out> +1

Jason +1 also

<klaus> +1