W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-rd@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Call For Papers

From: Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:44:14 +0300
Message-Id: <8DF4AFE2-210C-4130-B133-3148F3D991F0@metu.edu.tr>
To: RDWG RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Hi All,

Please see some comments about the CFP for Text Customisation below. My comments are for editor's discretion:

On 8 Aug 2012, at 19:35, Simon Harper wrote:
> can you please look at the CfP for Text Customisation and send any comments to Shawn - I would like us to approve this for distribution next Wednesday:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Text_Customization_Symposium_draft_page#Call_for_Papers_2

I think the CFP reads really well some suggestions below:

- I think this sentence might give the wrong message "It encourages new research, as well as re-analysis of past broader research, to further understand issues around text customisation for readability.". Will the editors' not accept a summary of the work that has been previously published? Will the authors need to re-analyse the results/data they have? I think it would be good to rephrase this sentence. 

- Regarding this sentence "Additionally, most of this customisation has not been well integrated in mainstream user agents (web browsers, etc.), nor is it sufficiently included in some accessibility standards and support material (such as the Section 508 standards)." Is there a particular reason why you are not referring to WCAG? I think most people who read this document, will probably be asking this question?

- Under the user group section the following sentence is not well related to the previous sentence and I think it needs better explanation "It also includes anyone reading in difficult situations". What do you mean by difficult situations?

- Regarding this objective,  "Analyze applied and experimental findings and integrate them into a report that offers clear, directive conclusions.". I think this objective sounds quite ambitious. Thinking about the previous two symposiums, this might not be possible, I mean it might not be possible to have conclusions but the note will mainly be raising more questions rather than having specific conclusions. I guess this all depends on the papers/abstracts that will be submitted, but I would soften this objective.

Yeliz Yesilada.
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:46:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:42 UTC