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

Re: [tc4r] Re: Call For Papers

From: Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:32:52 +0300
Cc: RDWG RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0F1A3AA0-5E19-4E31-8676-90166072BE22@metu.edu.tr>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Hi Shawn,

Please see my comments below.

On 15 Aug 2012, at 00:33, Shawn Henry wrote:

>> - 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?

I think using "analysis" would be fine or may be you can simplify the sentence, how about this?

"It encourages new research, as well as previously published research, to further understand issues around text customisation for readability…"

I think you don't need to talk about this in the objectives.

>> - 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!)


OK, I understand but it looks a bit strange not to have WCAG here. However, may be it's better to be quite on this.


> 
>> - 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.

OK, great.

> 
> 
>> - 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. :)

Great.

Regards,
Yeliz.
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 19:35:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 August 2012 19:35:29 GMT