W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > March 2012

Re: My concerns regarding publication

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:40:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4F62EE7E.2020807@w3.org>
To: Elle Waters <nethermind@gmail.com>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
On 16.3.2012 02:48, Elle wrote:
> I agree that we should publish as soon as possible to receive feedback and
> involve the entire community. It's that collective intelligence that will
> make this document something universally useful to the community. As long
> as Richard and Detlev's concerns are addressed with regards to expressing
> our intent for Sections 4 and 5, I think we can get really valuable
> contributions from publishing now.
>
> So, if we are able to outline the kinds of editorial changes for the
> Abstract and status of the document that we plan to make before publishing,
> perhaps that will help Richard and Detlev have fewer concerns about
> publishing earlier than they would initially like.  Are there examples of
> previous drafts from WC3 working groups that demonstrate how to effectively
> communicate the work in progress and its current state with clearly
> outlined goals?

Several come to mind, each with various degrees of "incompleteness" and 
approaches for seeking input from the public. For example the first 
public draft of UAAG [1] had empty sections and HTML5 [2] had all the 
open issues marked up to initiate discussion in the community:

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-UAAG20-20080312/>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080122/>

Best,
   Shadi


> Regards,
> Elle
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra<shadi@w3.org>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I think the next sections will probably take us a few months to fill, and
>> even then we may still feel it is too incomplete to publish. We need to
>> draw a line somewhere and say it is good enough for what it is.
>>
>> What we currently have is a base structure for the document that seems to
>> find agreement with the group. To take your analogy, we may not yet have
>> the full box but a pretty decent idea of how it could look like, and that
>> is a point in development that we should ask for feedback on.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to adapt the Abstract and Status of the Document
>> sections to better reflect the current state of the document and what we
>> are looking for from any interested reviewers (see comments #79 and #80).
>> This will help people decide if they want to spend time reviewing this
>> early draft or rather wait for a more complete one to review.
>>
>> On a more clerical note: we are actually required by the W3C Process to
>> publish drafts every three months (so called "heart-beat requirement").
>> This requirement is there for a reason, it is usually good for groups to
>> publish early and frequently to show the world where they are.
>>
>> All in all there are several reasons for publishing but few against it
>> provided that the current state of the document is made very clear to the
>> readers. Eric and I will take a stab at that clarification...
>>
>> Best,
>>   Shadi
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15.3.2012 22:41, RichardWarren wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alistair and Samuel et al,
>>>
>>> I am not suggesting that we “cobble something together”. I am asking that
>>> we merely indicate the way that we expect things to go in the empty
>>> sections. I feel that it is unfair to ask people to study and contribute
>>> feedback when there is such important information missing.
>>>
>>> I agree with both of you that feedback is useful and, as Samuel says, it
>>> is good to get some ideas from outside the box. But we do not yet have a
>>> box! we are missing at least two sides!
>>>
>>> So far we have written a good introduction plus methodology for defining
>>> scope and identifying target areas to evaluate. I have no objection to
>>> publishing that for discussion and feedback as a separate entity if you
>>> really want to. But we do not have a “Draft Evaluation Procedure” which is
>>> what (I think) Shadi wants to publish.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> From: Alistair Garrison
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:29 PM
>>> To: Samuel Sirois ; Eval TF
>>> Subject: Re: My concerns regarding publication
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I agree with Samuel - early feedback is good feedback...  I don't share
>>> the concerns about publishing...
>>>
>>> If you clearly say that this is an early release in order to gather as
>>> much early feedback as possible, in my experience, people will almost
>>> certainly react positively.
>>>
>>> I would not, however, recommend that we start hurriedly cobbling together
>>> content just to have some flesh in the last two sections - people will
>>> surely see that's what has been done, and it might reflect badly on the
>>> whole document.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Alistair
>>>
>>> On 15 Mar 2012, at 21:11, Samuel Sirois wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>    On 2012-03-15 15:06, Userite wrote:
>>>      Hi All,
>>>      Sorry if I appear awkward but following our recent conference I am
>>> even more worried about publishing this draft than I was before the
>>> conference.
>>>
>>>    Please, do not be sorry, real democracy is a great thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      I believe that we have a good document as far as it goes (down to
>>> Step 3 of section 3) However after that there is nothing. No indication of
>>> what sort of guidance we will provide, how we expect evaluators to use and
>>> apply WCAG nor, crucially, on how we think we might report the evaluation
>>> findings. These areas are of major importance and therefore deserve at
>>> least some indication of where we are going, or at least thinking of going.
>>> Even amongst ourselves we are asking questions about things like
>>> conformance, how much more would the public be asking if all they have
>>> available is the current document?
>>>
>>>    In my point of view, I think this is a good thing because we might
>>> receive comments that are really out of the box... since the box is opened
>>> on each side! ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      I am not suggesting that we provide the same level of detail yet in
>>> steps 4 and 5 etc. as we have in the earlier parts. But we should be able
>>> to outline our approach in a couple of weeks so that the public get a more
>>> complete draft and we are clearer about the overall process we are
>>> developing.
>>>
>>>      So my request is to hold off publication for a couple more weeks so
>>> that we can put some more flesh on the document.
>>>
>>>    I would like to read more on this. What are the cons of publishing
>>> right away?
>>>
>>>    Here are some pros that I see to early publication, coming from my
>>> development experience:
>>>    It allows the document to progress faster;
>>>    It enables the community to define what the document will become (so
>>> that the document will be of better use to the community, being closer to
>>> what the community really wants out of that kind of methodology);
>>>
>>>    You see those pros everywhere in the Free and Open Source Software
>>> community and Agile community. If you wish to read more on the subject, The
>>> Cathedral and the Bazaar is a must read (http://www.catb.org/~esr/**
>>> writings/cathedral-bazaar/<http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/>).
>>> Are those applicable to our methodology development? I let Eval TF express
>>> it's opinion on that one.
>>>
>>>    In my opinion, early feedback is good feedback: less work for us,
>>> better work for the community! ;)
>>>
>>>    My two cents.
>>>
>>>    Best regards to all,
>>>
>>>    Samuel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/**shadi/<http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/>
>> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
>> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
>> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 07:41:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT