Meeting minutes
Meeting overview.
<Chuck> No camera for me, I am wearing my very early morning apparel (nobody needs see that :-))
MichaelC: Suggests turning on camera while speaking
Interpreter: please turn cameras off when not speaking
<Chuck> Michael, you are in queue, did you address your points?
Jason: Purpose of this meeting is to review the research process and find common themes and methods of collaboration
Jason: We can begin with introductions
Introductions from meeting participants.
Introductions all around...
Outline of Research Questions Task Force research process.
jasonjgw: Our task force commonly reviews research as part of accessibility reviews on various topics
jasonjgw: We have documented the general process we use on our TF
jasonjgw: The process is not rigid
jasonjgw: It is a progressive review process with multiple rounds
jasonjgw: There are multiple opportunities for commenters to suggest additional sources and issues
<Chuck> I will let Jason know of queue when there is a pause.
jasonjgw: The outline document provides additional details
jasonjgw: Multiple phases of the process are discussed
scott_h: Various members on the RQTF have different levels of access to journal libraries and we typically leverage that
scott_h: The document outlines the process quite well
Lisa: Some questions on the process
Opportunities for refinement, coordination and formal documentation of research methods.
Lisa: Have some comments on improvements
Lisa: One interest is what are the terms being used in research
Lisa: terms like "accessibility" often turns up heavily WCAG hits on web accessibility
Lisa: Should also broaden to terms like "learning disabilities" to not get overly focused on blindness
Lisa: This seems especially important to be more inclusive of disability types
Lisa: Also important to recognize who the stakeholders are
Lisa: Knowing who the stateholders are, and which groups do they represent
Lisa: Differences between member organizations and professional groups
<Chuck> Seeyou later Alastair
Lisa: Did the various groups get into the first round, the second round, etc.
Lisa: Also important to make sure that stakeholder groups are involved in the task force itself
<Lisa> +1 to rachael
<Rachael> https://
Rachael: Seems like there is a valuable opportunity to create a note or wiki to document key terms and databases
Rachael: Are we supporting and documenting in a way to broaden this even beyond the W3C community
Lisa: How to do an inclusive literary review - we could ask organizations like TRACE if they have already done one and could share that with us
Lisa: We could reach out to stakeholders early on in the process
scott_h: The idea of a wiki for keywords sound like a great idea
<Lisa> as part of diverse recruiting for individual projects
<Lisa> we can reach out to stakeholders as a very early step
scott_h: We do initially try to get as many perspectives as possible
scott_h: The wiki would help in the initial process; we could also list external groups known for commonly conducting research
janina: capturing search strategies is an important point; we can capture the search terms and databases that have been included, for example
jasonjgw: Authors of papers will include additional sources which is always a means of expanding the research base
jasonjgw: Key words are important as a starting point
jasonjgw: Refine the outline and have a more organic presence on the wiki page seems like two actions to take
<janina> Did someone say "top ten?" I didn't hear that
Lisa: Commonly people will look at the top ten search results; but will not necessarily be inclusive of many disabilities
<Chuck> Lisa said that there are times that an accessibility doc may not be in the top 10 results.
Lisa: Suggests documenting what is credible
Lisa: For instance, is any W3C note considered credible?
Lisa: In the effort to reach out to various stakeholder groups, we need to make sure the method of conversation was accessible to that disability group
Lisa: We need to be inclusive in every stage of the process
jasonjgw: We have identified some next steps
scott_h: We have tried to communicate thus far and are trying to make those more inclusive
scott_h: We know some methods such as GitHub has challenges
scott_h: We focus primarily on peer-reviewed sources; but understand that these resources alone do not guarantee it being inclusive
<Lisa> best way to reach coga is to send us an email to the list
<Lisa> (coga list)
jasonjgw: Refining the process and having an open-ended process to document the steps used
janina: I believe we have agreement on that
Raja_Kushalnagar: We understand that within groups it is possible to get people from these groups to provide feedback
<Lisa> but there is a problem that all user needs get included early enough to fully contribute. we need to change that
<Chuck> Sorry, I had a hickup in VPN.
<Chuck> Answer to the question is 'Yes', I think these resources may be of great value.
<Chuck> +1 for follow up meeting
Lisa: COGA often feels that by the time it sees a product it is too late to add substantive feedback, so we were hoping to improve this problem
janina: Suggest some discussion with APA on this for further perspective
<Lisa> thank youu everyone!
Chuck: Agree with the suggested next steps
<Raja_Kushalnagar> For example, ASSETS conference focuses on accessible computing, and peer-reviews papers covering a diverse set of abilities/disabilities