Silver Task Force Teleconference

31 Mar 2017

See also: IRC log


JemmaJaeunku, ruth, ShawnLaurit, sukilkim, jan, Sarahhorton


updates to research topics

Jemma: One of my researchers and I will meet next week. One has a student working on a topic. We will talk next week and determine what the topic.
... I will talk to one who is working with students and get her topic.

Jeanne: It would be helpful to know what the student topics are, so we know where our gaps are. Then we can tell her what we need more help with.

Sarah: I talked with Pete who is setting up his first project. He is also writing up a description of his project to post on the Community Group space. He is also working on a survey. He wants to get the questions to the task force on April 13, and he will on the agenda for the Task Force meeting of 18 April.

I have questions for the task force on his behalf.

scribe: can he talk about this work at conferences?
... do we have any restrictions on what survey tool he can use.

Jeanne: The survey tool needs to be accessible. Otherwise, he can use any tool -- at least the tool isn't restricted by the W3C.

Sarah: I gave him the language to use about W3C endorsement, but he didn't understand it, so I think we need to write a clear explanation of what that means.

Jeanne: For example, in the past, people have exaggerated their relationship with the W3C, like saying the W3C has hired them for the research, or that their research IS the Silver project. I think if they say that they are doing research that supports the Silver project which is in the early phases, they will be fine.

Sarah: Scenarios help me understand situations, so writing it that way would be helpful.
... One of the researchers is looking at the fall for the project because they want students involved. I will follow up to narrow down the research questions to those that would be appropriate for that timeframe.

Jan: One has topic on Internet of Things. He has sent me 6 documents to review. Another is still working on her topic. I got an email about his topic. I also got an email with another topic to review, but I haven't gone through it yet. I don't have final information from another researcher. Mostly I am playing tag with them, but I hope that we are ready to start making progress.

Sarah: I got a note from someone asking for a when on stakeholder topics. I think we need to give the stakeholders and update of the status for stakeholders and when their input is needed.

Jeanne: I think we should send a general project update letter to the stakeholders, to the AGWG, and WAI-IG. Give everyone an update.

Sukil: On Thursday next week, I can get the English version of the Korean Mobile Accessibility Standards to share.
... I tried to discuss the Silver project with Korean colleagues, and invite them to join the Task Force.

Jeanne: they can also join the Community Group so they can participate without having to be on a phone call late at night. I want to be respectful of people's time and make it easier for them to participate without being on the phone.

Sukil: Next month we are going to have a forum in Korea on accessibility, and I will promote the Silver Task Force and I will invite others to join the Task Force.

identify gaps in the research

<Lauriat> Research project tracking sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bsqv595CnSzmUa2Tv53duudNvn_ExTW6xGx-6_ECM7c/edit#gid=0

Shawn: We have a lot of topics covered, but there are a few researchers that haven't settled on their topic yet.

Jan: I have one researcher that is interested in how developers use the WCAG guidelines

<Lauriat> Research Projects wiki page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Research_Projects

Jan: does anyone know how many other people have that topic?
... that was David's PhD research topic.

Shawn: There are two areas to cover -- the research questions, because we want to get data on these topics.
... and the user research methods themselves. We need to make sure that surveys, interviews, self-study, literature review, background research are all covered.

Sarah: We seem to have people using surveys and interviews. I think the self-study is not well covered, and I think that would be a great method to suggest to David Swallow.
... although if a method that we identified months ago isn't working out, we should be able to drop it.

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

Shawn: If we do, then we need to communicate that detailed and loudly, since the plan we are following was voted on by the WCAG WG, and we need to follow it.

<Lauriat> Research Projects wiki page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Research_Projects

Jemma: On the wiki page, there is a discrency between the research questionsand research methods

Shawn: There is potential for overlap between the WCAG analysis and the analysis of WCAG adaptations.

Jemma: The WCAG adaptions can certainly include stakeholder interviews.
... maybe we should move some of the research methods under the user research.

Shawn: There is overlap, but it doesn't totally fit under them.

Sarah: we struggled with phrasing it, but we never came up with a better word.

Shawn: A researcher may say, I want to study this question, but I want to adapt to a better method, then we will agree. They know more about it than we do. More power to them!
... It seems early to identify gaps in topics. We can identify what we have covered than the other way around.

Jan: Can you give me more detail on the self-reporting study, so I can describe it to researchers?

Sarah: Develop a set of questions that a developer or other role can write down for a week or two to write down how the devleoper uses WCAG every day. It might be a survey that they answer multiple times a day. We would look to the resesarcher to design the questions they would answer.

Shawn: Rather than looking at the gaps in the research, as you discuss topics with your researcher partner, let them know which one of their interests is already covered, so they can focus on another area.

Sarah: One of the good things is that we have a distribution over the research topics.

Jemma: On the wiki is background research and WCAG analysis, can we have researchers who are not interacting with users?

Shawn: Certainly. We can do it in the Task Force, but a researcher can do it with more independence and more validity.
... a researcher can look at the data and the adaptations and look at it over time, or an indirect analysis of WCAG.
... having someone look through WCAG systematically with fresh eyes, would be very valuable.
... it could also be combined with surveys.

Jemma: It could be biased and subjective..

Shawn: That's why it is valuable to have someone outside of the WCAG do the analysis.

Sarah: it would be valuable to have someone who looks at all the research and do an expert review. Deconstruct all the components, and anyalyze how they work together and see the gaps. And perhaps do user research or a literature review.
... it's more of a current state analysis
... other researchers can do the "where do we need to go?" questions
... this is the current WCAG and where people have taken it.

Jeanne: a broad look at the impact of WCAG on the accessibility industry and it's impact on business and culture would be very helpful.

distributing researcher support

Sarah: Jan is supporting a lot of researchers, and I would like to offer to help share the work.

Jan: it seems that there are a lot of people who are not yet assigned.

Shawn: It is somewhat of an illusion, because people are listed multiple times and only have someone assigned once.

Jan: I would like to ask people who are going to work on the diary project to work with Sarah.
... I would ask Sarah to work with David Swallow at TPG.

Sarah: Madeline Shelgrin doesn't have a name of a partner assigned to her. She is at MSU, and is part of the Brook and Phil group at MSU, so she is covered.

policies for using the stakeholder list

<Jan> Jeanne: Jan and Jeanne met about the stakeholder policy

<jemma> jeanne: Jan has great ideas for the stakeholder policy!

<Jan> ... we started with the idea of the stakeholder's intellectual property and the fact that the reseachers need to acknowledge their ideas and thoughts - people should get credit as the source of the idea.

<jemma> jemma: what is the scope of these stakeholders' list?

<Jan> ... we alson need to be respectful of whether or not they want their names to be listed as the source of quotes, etc. or if they would prefer instead for their input to be in aggregate.

<Jan> ... we need to start by telling researchers that this list is for research purposes only and only for Silver research - you cannot continue to use this list of names for project ongoing in the future that are not related to Silver

<Jan> ... you also cannot share the list with other people outside of the project

<Jan> ... we also reviewed codes of ethics and we found an organization called AAPOR - American Association for Public Opinion Research

<Jan> ... we agreed that we needed to ensure that we have information for researchers about working with people with disabilities. Jeanne found the National Disability Authority has an 83-page document about the best practices of working with people with disabilities and particularly around informed consent - in particular with people with intellectual disabilities.



Sarah: It's great that we are thinking about this and being clear about it.

Jemma: Let's talk about how the researchers need to give the stakeholders credit

Jan: We gave some examples of "game changer" ideas that make a big difference, and they need to get credit for their ideas. Everyone is giving their intellectual property to the project, but when someone makes a signficant contribution, we need to acknowledge that.
... maybe there is a better way to handle it.

Jemma: I like giving credit, but I am thinking of the technical details to accomplish that.

<jemma> jemma: it is also right things to give credits to stakeholders.

Jan: People get their names on the specs, and I know there is ongoing credit of the people that work on the specs. Maybe people who make significant contributions get their name in the spec.

Jeanne: But this opens a very tricky situation, because there are people who sign up for working groups, never contribute, but insist getting the credit and then exploit that credit for commercial gain.

Jan: I dont' think we can figure it out on this call, I think we need to see how the research works out.
... some people don't want to get credit, I never thought everyone should get credit.

Jeanne: maybe that is part of informed consent -- that if the researcher is getting more than aggregated research, that they get informed consent of whether their name should be used.

Ruth: Is there a plan to acknowledge the stakeholders?

Jeanne: We have never talked aobut it. Maybe we need to get information back from the reserachers that lists everyone who actually did participate in a research. That way we know it, if we need it.

<Jan> +1 to list of research participants

Jeanne: and hopefully we can come up with a nice way of acknowledging the people who participated.

Onboard content

Jeanne: Last week we asked Ruth to work on Onboarding

Ruth: I am trying to pull together information on how to edit, how to pull together information for researchers to post to the list.
... I don't have edit access.

Jeanne: Maybe your email or password is incorrect at W3C. https://www.w3.org/users/


<jemma> https://www.w3.org/community/silver/wp-admin/

<Jan> I have to drop for another meeting. I will talk to you guys next Friday. I am out at a conference on Tuesday.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/03/31 15:01:31 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/surveys, interviews, literature/surveys, interviews, self-study, literature/
Succeeded: s/ and @@/and research methods/
Succeeded: s/osmeone/someone/
Succeeded: s/biased/biased and subjective./
Succeeded: s/this stakeholders/these stakeholders' list/
Succeeded: s/to do/to give credits to stakeholders/
Present: JemmaJaeunku ruth ShawnLaurit sukilkim jan Sarahhorton
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jeanne
Inferring Scribes: jeanne

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 31 Mar 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/03/31-silver-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]