W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-rd@w3.org > December 2011

Re: my reflections on next symposia

From: Markel Vigo <markel.vigo@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:08:37 +0000
Cc: public-wai-rd@w3.org
Message-Id: <8C57DC9C-4F0F-4FA4-BD94-990AA25B8A88@manchester.ac.uk>
To: giorgio brajnik <brajnik@uniud.it>
Hi there,

I fully agree with what Giorgio says, especially cons 1, 2 and 3.

I also would like to know how many people that committed to joining the call did finally attend the symposium. We can discuss these figures on Thursday.

Kind regards,

Markel Vigo

University of Manchester (UK)
Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group

PS: I check my email at 9AM and 5PM BST. If you require a faster response please include the word [fast!] in the subject line.

On Dec 6, 2011, at 10:59 AM, giorgio brajnik wrote:

> Hi to everybody.
> Since it's still fresh in my mind I'm going to utter my feelings about
> yesterday's event and how next ones could be improved.
> First of all, I'm happy that despite the initial mishaps we were able to
> carry it out decently well.
> Second, I think there is plenty of room for improving.
> Third, thank you to those that participated and to those that spoke
> during the event.
> Pro's
> 1. a two hour slot is good so that many people can participate without
> clogging their schedule
> 2. the panel run on the basis a few predefined questions is also a good
> thing
> 3. good to have a page with papers, slides, captions.
> 4. it's a good idea to provide participants with an individual code so
> that zakim can tell the name of the person that is speaking or that
> raised hand.
> Con's
> 1. initial presentations were too long. Next time I would ask authors to
> give a short presentation of themselves (1 minute long) and that is. The
> end result is to give more space to the panel and to the global Q&A part.
> 2. 1000-word long abstracts are ok. Next time I would ask authors to
> provide also a 2-3 slide summary of their work (for participants that do
> not feel like they have to read all the abstracts), but not ask authors
> to present the slides.
> 3. 11 participants were too many; next time I would go for about 8
> people. This should also increase the quality and the cohesiveness of
> the event.
> 4. the panel and the final Q&A part were ok, but there was too little
> interaction between panelists and also between panelists and public. It
> might have had something to do with the machinery for raising hands,
> handling "the mic", following a somewhat rigid schedule for who was
> going to talk when. I feel this was the major defect of yesterday's
> event. We need to make these events more interactive.
> 5. in addition to a person that leads/moderates the event, we need at
> least another person that handles zakim. And both these persons should
> have a backup so that if they suddenly disappear the backup person can
> continue the event.
> 6. next time I would ask speakers to join the conference 30 minutes in
> advance and make sure that their settings is ok for talking and hearing.
> 7. it could be good to provide participants with another info channel
> (like a twitter code) to let them to tell something to
> chairs/panelists/audience.
> Giorgio
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 11:09:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:41 UTC