Silver Task Force Teleconference

10 Feb 2017

See also: IRC log


Shawn, Jan, David, MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah
jeanne, shawn


<scribe> Scribe: Lauriat

check in on research

David: Followed up with each researcher, shared questions, asked them for additional questions that they'd like to add. Some have responded, one said he'd email the list, but hasn't yet.
... Will follow up.
... Many haven't yet responded, but we can assume due to their initial responses that their interest still applies as originally stated.
... One response from there in Scotland about timing issues between the academic calendar and Silver's timeline. Responded that we hope to have some flexibility with the timing to allow for this.

Sarah: We came to that conclusion on Tuesday.

Jeanne: Looking at the timeline, we have a longer block of time. We have researching finishing in August, but analysis follows for quite some time after, so we could have some of them finishing up closer to September - November timeline. As long as not all follow that, that delay seems fine for some.

David: Most people indicating time constraints want to get started quite soon, many mentioned March specifically.

<sloandr> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bsqv595CnSzmUa2Tv53duudNvn_ExTW6xGx-6_ECM7c/edit#gid=0

David: So it'd make sense to initially focus on those researchers.

Jeanne: What do we do from here to get started?

David: We should go through each of the individuals, summarize what they want to do, and start talking with them about how to make that happen.
... If we have a number of projects that we want to do, and some projects happen in more than one place, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Shawn: Do we have TF partners, or should we do that now?

David: Once we've confirmed their interest and focus, then we can assign TF partners based on that.

Jeanne: We talked on Tuesday about the responses we've received so far, and each of us volunteered (or volunteered someone) as a partner for those.

Sarah: We decided that initial follow-up would come from David, making introductions with their TF partner chosen for those in particular.

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2017Feb/0011.html

<jemma_> Tyson McMillan, Assessing the Accessibility of Web 2.0 The American Society for Information Science & Technology, November 2009

<jeanne> Jan was interested in being a partner in Tyson McMillan's education-related project

<jeanne> Jeanne was interested in Michael Heron's project -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2017Feb/0010.html

<jeanne> Shawn wanted to partner Scott Hollier's project on flexibility -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2017Feb/0009.html

Sarah: I differentiated between leads and partners, so maybe we can go through that today.
... We could just assign the partners out right now, and then adjust as needed, just to get things rolling. Then you, David, can reach out and make introductions so we can get started.


David: We should start filling in that column A with research questions so that we can plan out the work and allocate it to those available to work on it.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Research_Projects#Proposed_Research_Questions

Jeanne: Let's try to focus people on what we know we really need, but research outside of that will still prove very valuable. We just don't want to see people repeat research already well established.

David: Let's start with the questions, think about what kind of data would help answer that question, and then map out the activities that would bring out that data.

Sarah: I think we should reach back out to the researchers, since they'll have their own thoughts on what kinds of activities would do that.

Shawn: I think it would make sense to go with what David described, and then reach out to researchers with the drafted proposal of what to do for the research methods, but ask them their opinion of that as a sanity check.

Sarah: Should we move on from assigning partners, then?

Jeanne: No, let's do it now.

<sloandr> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f-7FUfhht8TpOdRKdYYpXOt2hxZ6p7oXDOyMWZMLQL0/edit#gid=0

[doing do now]

<jemma_> . Watanabe: International and national standard harmonization and achievement effort of web accessibility in Japan

research next steps

David: I'll now allocate research questions to each activity, and then we can match the researchers with the activities and questions to get started. Then, each partner can reach out with that information and a starting proposal.

Sarah: We have these TF leads in the spreadsheet. As TF partners, we should make sure to loop in the leads so that they can each coordinates things from there.

<SarahHorton> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bsqv595CnSzmUa2Tv53duudNvn_ExTW6xGx-6_ECM7c/edit#gid=0

David: Each coordinator, please also review the questions that I've put in column A, just to make sure as well.

<jemma_> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f-7FUfhht8TpOdRKdYYpXOt2hxZ6p7oXDOyMWZMLQL0/edit#gid=0

Jeanne: As we get started working with the researchers, we should document the limitations and difficulties that we have in interacting with them so that we can work together to figure those out. Let's plan on doing that next Friday.

Review literature review wiki

<jemma_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Literature_Review

Jemma: Jeanne helped me set up the wiki yesterday, but I have three questions
... I structured this by questions, targets, but want feedback from you as to how we will structure all of this.
... Are you thinking it'd be good to have all of the references in this page?

Jeanne: Yes! Really, to help you, but also helpful for others to have access to this information.

David: Lots of the researchers will have already done some form of literature review, and we don't need to repeat that. We should get that sort of information from the researchers as to what they've already covered, for instance as part of PhD thesis work including literature reviews.

Jemma: Do you have recommendations for how to structure this page?

David: It depends on the purpose of the review. Capturing references, or what the references say?

Jemma: The latter.
... Maybe organizing by types, like analysis of WCAG adaptations, so that people can find things on that topic.

David: Organizing references by research question seems like a good way to go. That might also prompt people to drop in more references by question.

Jemma: Can I get help from the research partners? Some also expressed interest in literature review. How can they contribute?

Jeanne: I think we can just ask how they'd like to help.

David: This is how the research TF is working. We start with the questions and then go and find references that look like they'd help to answer the question.
... We have 22 researchers and some of them have said they'd like to help out with the literature review, so it might make sense to get them together as a group to work on this to answer the questions for that.
... We can manage this differently than the other activities, since this is much more collaborative.

Jemma: Jeanne, how do I mark that this is in progress rather than done?

<sloandr> This is an example of how RQTF collects references: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Authentication_references

Jeanne: Just a line at the top to highlight.

Jemma: Did you use any citation software?

David: Kind of a copied version of what someone created with EndNote.

Jeanne: Can we build up a file where we can have a copy of things behind a paywall?

David: We'll need to follow the copyright rules and such for the given publication.

Jeanne: Thinking not about publishing it, but more for Shawn's project for searching the text of papers in order to come up with terms for discovering additional papers. Definitely don't want to violate copyright, obviously!

David: One thing publishers do, without accessing the raw text, you can access the references at the end of the paper, so you can see what papers reference those.

Jemma: I'll continue to work on this, and add in the research questions. Any other feedback or comments?

Jeanne: Thank you for doing it, this is a good start!
... I also sent an email to the list with an article that has a lot of references in it, I'll forward that on.
... It has a lot of things in there around why people should include accessibility early.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/02/10 15:56:36 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148  of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: Lauriat
Inferring ScribeNick: Lauriat
Present: Shawn Jan David MichaelC Jeanne Sarah
Found Date: 10 Feb 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/02/10-silver-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]