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 15:20:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4F634C43.4010900@w3.org>
To: Richard Warren <richard.warren@userite.com>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Richard,

On 16.3.2012 14:31, RichardWarren wrote:
> Dear Shadi,
> Bearing in mind your comments as follows ..
>>> 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.
>>>
> I concede that publishing now could be desirable so long as Judy's
> comments (#79 & #80) about explaining the document and its status are
> addressed prior to publication..

I appreciate your understanding and support!

I moved Judy's comments up for exactly that reason. Eric and I are in 
the process of trying to address your concerns as well as we can...

Best,
   Shadi


> I bow to your experience in this <G>
>
> Regards
> Richard
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 7:40 AM
> To: Elle Waters
> Cc: Eval TF
> Subject: Re: My concerns regarding publication
>
> 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 14:21:25 GMT

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