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

Antw: Re: suggestion for "Copyright Policy" section

From: Klaus Miesenberger <Klaus.Miesenberger@jku.at>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:31:10 +0100
Message-Id: <4F473CBE02000099000D37D4@gwia1.im.jku.at>
To: "Markel Vigo" <markel.vigo@manchester.ac.uk>, "Yeliz Yesilada" <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>
Cc: "Joshue O Connor" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, "RDWG" <public-wai-rd@w3.org>,"Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Hi Yeliz, all,
 
if this does not work, I could talk to the AAATE Journal editors if a special issue would be of interest.
Or the Journal of Assistive Technologies: www.emeraldinsight.com/jat.htm might be interested.
 
Regarding the discussion before, besides the aspect of beeing selective for the notes (where we seem to have agreement):
 
I think we should also make some strategic considerations what kind of contribution we call for. It very much depends on what we expect from a seminar: 
a) Papers ready to be published or 
b) Papers with new conceptional ideas
 
For a) we can expect R&D which has been finished.
For b) we can expect conceptual considerations and position papers.
 
What is of more interest for RDWG?
a) seems to call for published work or work on its way to be published; there are enough channels for this. What we get is more or less a copy of already known and published work.
b) seems IMO more appropriate for a seminar! which should fill RDWG with new ideas.
 
Also we might consider and take into account that research topics are different in terms of maturation:
Advanced topics my be successfull to get enough papers under a)
Newer topics (most of what we have in the wiki) might be better off calling for contributions under b)
 
IMO, due to the nature and concept of RDWG and due to the short time scale we have to work on, I would opt in any case possibilities of submitting work under b).
 
Perhaps the following could be an approach:
a) Open call for papers, conceptual work and position papers on a topic
b) Workshop selects an attractive programme
c) Web publication of all contributions
d) Selective publication for the notes
e) Selective invitation to a journal publication
 
Only some considerations - as I'm always a fan of open, unpolished and crazy ideas.
 
Klaus

>>> Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr> 2/23/2012 8:22 >>>
I agree with Markel. How about ACM? or other places for publishing the proceedings or may be we can talk to SIGACCESS newsletter editors to have them published in the newsletter so that they can be referenced. 

Regards,
Yeliz. 
On 23 Feb 2012, at 11:18, Markel Vigo wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Apparently we all agree that submissions have to be citeable. Why don't we deal with the research note and proceedings in a separate way?
> 
> - On the one hand we have the Research Note, which refers to the symposium in one of the sections (section 3) but mainly contains the research carried out by the editors. I understand that this one should also stand out.
> 
> - On the other hand, we have the citeable proceedings of the symposium in another separate document(s).
> 
> So I agree with Giorgio's first formula (with small modifications):
> 
> [1] M. Vigo, G. Brajnik and J. O'Connor, Research note on Web Accessibility Metrics, 2012. W3C Research Note on Website Accessibility Metrics (the URL of the research note itself)
> 
> [2] A Niezio, M Eibegger, M. Goodwin, M Snaprud, Towards a score function for WCAG 2.0 benchmarking, 2011. In Website Accessibility Metrics, Online Symposium 5 December 2011, http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics (and link to http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/paper11)
> 
> Another alternative is to remove section 3 from the RN and use it as an introduction in a separate document that will gather all submissions. This document can be understood as proceedings.
> 
> Anyhow, something should be done so that papers of the symposium in any form are collected by Scholar and similar engines (I assume that the RN will be indexed by crawlers). Currently only paper #6 is indexed by Scholar (and not very properly).
> 
> cheers,
> 
> 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 Feb 23, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> 
>> Hi Josh,
>> 
>> On 23.2.2012 09:40, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I'm a little confused about what the issue is. Quality seems to be a
>>> part of it but also it seems to be how we present the papers that we do
>>> accept? I agree with Simon that if we accept a paper, we accept a paper.
>>> So it should be a full citizen, and referenced in the normal manner.
>>> 
>>> This is an incentive for people to submit.
>> 
>> I don't think publication is being challenged. I think we all agree that all accepted papers will be published as part of the proceedings (in a referencable form and with a permanent URI).
>> 
>> The question is if we then also need to always include these same papers as appendices to the consolidated WG Note.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Shadi
>> 
>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Josh
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
>> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
>> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
>> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 06:33:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 24 February 2012 06:33:30 GMT