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

Re: my reflections on next symposia

From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:42:18 +0000
Message-ID: <4EDE45EA.3010508@manchester.ac.uk>
To: giorgio brajnik <brajnik@uniud.it>, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Thanks for these Giorgio, I think it went well but these changes would 
be good. I was also thinking maybe we should not let people present - 
but work up 3 questions based on each abstract first, instead of just 
presenting the abstracts or slides authors would answer these questions 
before a wider Q&A?



PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster response please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.

Simon Harper

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

On 06/12/2011 10:59, 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 16:42:51 UTC

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