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

[tc4r] Re: Call For Papers

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:33:17 -0500
Message-ID: <502AC41D.2070009@w3.org>
To: Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>
CC: RDWG RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Thank you for the comments, Yeliz!

Replies below.

On 8/14/2012 3:44 PM, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
> 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.

Does it work if we change "re-analysis" or "analysis"?

The situation that we are particularly addressing is that there a several good papers published where text customization is one small part of a broader study. It would be nice to have submissions that focus on the text customization aspects of those studies -- preferably going into more detail on text customization than the original paper(s) covered.

Ideas for how to write that short & sweet in the intro? Should we say it more explicitly later in the Objectives section?

> - 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?
Yes, because text customization is not covered well (or at all?) in the current Section 508. There is some debate about how it is covered in WCAG 2.0. I want to stay away from that debate in these pages. (and hope that the Symposium will help clear up the issue for the future!)


> - 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?

I deleted that sentence and just left the explanation in the last bullet under there.


> - 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.

Good point. I tried changing "conclusions" to "recommendations" with the idea that the recommendations might be more research needed. -- I am optimistic that we'll get to more concrete conclusions. We'll see. :)

Best,
~Shawn
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 21:33:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 August 2012 21:33:28 GMT