Re: content under review - freeze or update?

Your key sentence Shawn was, "I think if we let participants know of
changes, then that mitigates the con." If we do that then everyone will
know that is the process ahead of time and refresh or reprint, etc.

I vote for updating as we go too.


Brent A. Bakken
Director, Accessibility Strategy & Education Services
Psychometrics & Testing Services
Co-Chair Pearson Able (global)
*Pearson*

512 202 1087
brent.bakken@pearson.com
US Central Time Zone






On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:58 PM Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org> wrote:

> The agile approach is to add the suggestions (or address why we will not
> include them) before the meeting/discussion.
> +1 to that approach
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:34 AM Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When a draft resource is under review it, should we freeze it or update
>> it appropriately during the review period? I think it would be good to
>> establish a default approach, and can do differently in specific cases as
>> warranted.
>>
>> Two recent use cases (I might not have the scenarios exactly right):
>>
>> 1. Authoring Tools List Requirements Analysis was put on the agenda that
>> was announced on Wednesday for Friday meeting discussion. On Wednesday
>> afternoon, Vicki sent 2 suggestions for additions.
>>
>> My perspective is that it was best to go ahead and add those (as editor
>> agreed) so they were in the document that we discussed on Friday. If the
>> doc was considered frozen until after Friday, then we'd have to go back
>> after or during the meeting and tell participants those things were/would
>> be added. And then do another review.
>>
>> 2. Curriculum Units 1 & 2 Survey was opened on 31 July with a close date
>> of 13 August. Some comments came in right away that lead to edits (that
>> have not been merged yet, pending this issue :-).
>>
>> I know some people (e.g., Brent) will not be able to review this until
>> near the end of the review period. It would be more efficient if those
>> people reviewed the changes -- so they don't have to re-review them later.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> One thing to keep in mind is that I think some people get worn out with
>> multiple reviews (and maybe not give good reviews at the end). Therefore,
>> it's probably good to avoid too many complete and thorough reviews.
>>
>> About making changes as they come in (as feasible):
>> * Pros: It seems clear that making changes right away leads to better,
>> sooner, fewer reviews.
>> * Con: The potential negative of not freezing content is that some
>> participants print out the pages and start a review, but don't finish it
>> and submit comments. Then they go back later and finish their review on the
>> old printed pages -- and end up commenting on wording that has changed
>> (thus wasting their time).
>>
>> ---
>>
>> My perspective is that the pro outweighs the con significantly.
>>
>> I think if we let participants know of changes, then that mitigates the
>> con. I think the situation in the con is not super common -- and we don't
>> have to do a detailed diff as we go along, just a high-level bullet list of
>> which sections changed.
>>
>> Let's check in on this in EO-Plan meeting Wednesday, and maybe bring to
>> EOWG on Friday if we think useful.
>>
>> Best,
>> ~Shawn
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
> *Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*
>