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

Re: suggestion for "Copyright Policy" section

From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:49:39 +0000
Message-ID: <4F474113.5050309@manchester.ac.uk>
To: Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>
CC: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Me too, I'll add it to of schedule.



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 23/02/12 21:58, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
> I think it would be great to have a meeting specifically about this topic.
> On 23 Feb 2012, at 23:13, Shawn Henry wrote:
>> Various comments below.
>> On 2/23/2012 1:47 AM, Simon Harper wrote:
>>> Further, the argument that publications included as part of the site, ie on the web are as citable as the note - just doesn't hold up. I see the note as the proceedings of the seminar. In this case we could have 2 sections the first being by the editors, the second being each paper - referenced as a proceedings. If the site has the same status as the note then why do we have a note at all?
>> I don't understand why you say a Note is more referenceable than a standard page on the W3C website.
>> "Why a W3C Working Group Note?" - is a good question, actually. Personally, I'm not convinced that any of it needs to be a Note, yet I appreciate that some people feel it has more "weight" or formal status as a Note. Perhaps the Note feels like it has more review or approval -- but those are just perceptions. In fact, for many (non-Note) WAI Resources, the we first announce a draft for public review, and when stable, the WG formally approves publication.
>> So what makes a Note feel more referenceable than a web page? Is it the "front matter"? the design? These are things that we can do with any web page, or group of web pages, such as papers in Proceedings.
> I think people (at least academics) view a note more referenceable because they think it goes through a better review process than a web page. I think not many people are familiar with the review process of WAI resources/pages.
>> Perhaps we want to provide the papers not as part of a Working Group Note, but also not looking like part of the WAI website? Instead, we have a Proceedings front (web)page that looks like a publication from an event, and each paper is presented as a paper within that Proceedings publication. We can choose to "package" the Proceedings however we want (afaik anyway), e.g., we could design a cover, index them, and provide them as a single downloadable PDF (also available in accessible HTML or course :).
>> I'm not necessarily suggesting these options -- partly because they will be more work, probably some on my part<grin>  -- just offering them for consideration and discussion.
>> ---
>> A second point is the relationship of the Report -- should it be part of the Proceedings versus separate? What about the Proceedings containing:
>> 1. Intro material
>> 2. Report (could be WG Note or not)
>> 3. Paper 1
>> 4. Paper 2
>> 5. ... etc.
> I think this would be fine.
>> On 2/23/2012 2:17 AM, giorgio brajnik wrote:
>>> Why don't we try as an exercise to write some example of references?
>>> How would you refer to the research note[1]?
>>> and how to the paper by Nietzio et al[2]?
>>> My suggestion is something like
>>> [1] M. Vigo, G. Brajnik and J. O'Connor, Research note on Web Accessibility Metrics, 2012. In Website Accessibility Metrics, Online Symposium 5 December 2011, http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics (and 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)
>>> or, alternatively:
>>> [2] A Niezio, M Eibegger, M. Goodwin, M Snaprud, Towards a score function for WCAG 2.0 benchmarking, 2011. In Proc. of Website Accessibility Metrics, Online Symposium 5 December 2011, Vigo, Brajnik, O'Connor (eds.), http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics (and link to http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/paper11)
>> I prefer a format such as the latter that references the Proceedings as a publication.
>> Per my idea above of the Report also being part of the Proceedings publication, then it would be more like:
>> [1] M. Vigo, G. Brajnik and J. O'Connor, Web Accessibility Metrics Research Report, 2012. In Proc. of Website Accessibility Metrics, Online Symposium 5 December 2011,...
>> This is somewhat related is Yeliz's suggestion:
>> On 2/23/2012 1:22 PM, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I hope that we can provide them in such a way that people are comfortable referencing them on the W3C website. Separate from that, I think it would be great if we could also publish them in a way that they appear in more academic paper searches. I assume SIGACCESS newsletter is not sufficient. I also assume most of you know more about this than I do and my fingers are tired, so I think I'll stop for now.
> The reason I mentioned SIGACCESS newsletter is the fact that it is published by ACM and the articles get ISSN and DOI numbers<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=J956&picked=prox>. SIGACCESS newsletter is just an example venue. I think considering a formal proceedings for this webinar will increase the academic status, if that's want we want to do. May be we can also talk to Constantine Stephanidis (Editor in chief of UAIS<http://www.springer.com/computer/hci/journal/10209>) and see if they would be interested in publishing them as short research notes, I am not sure, these are suggestions for discussion.....
> Regards,
> Yeliz.
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 07:50:11 UTC

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