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

Re: Antw: Re: e2r: selection of papers and format of symposium

From: Christos Kouroupetroglou <chris.kourou@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:54:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPpNJJ8KBrQSyqE=-97Pgavf8Vy68adKQg7vQfMapUNROeeMLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: SIMON HARPER <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Klaus Miesenberger <Klaus.Miesenberger@jku.at>, Annika Nietzio <an@ftb-volmarstein.de>, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
OK for me too


2012/11/5 Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>

> Hi Klaus,
>
> I support your proposal - we've not done it like this before, it will be
> interesting to see the result, and finally you as chair and editors for
> this should have a degree of autonomy to choose what you feel is best.
>
> Cheers
>
> Si.
>
> 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
> http://simon.harper.name/about/card/
>
> University of Manchester (UK)
> Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
> http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
>
> On 05/11/12 10:46, Klaus Miesenberger wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I agree that 14 papers is too much for 2 hours and also I agree that a
> second date is difficult.
> >
> > The issues why we were considering to accept 14 papers - besides seeing
> good value in them - was, that we
> > GO AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL PAPER PRESENTATIONS.
> >
> > We do NOT intend that each author presents its paper - this would ask
> for going down to 8 - 10 papers for 2 hours or even less.
> >
> > I thaught there is agreement that we run a panel discussion based on the
> questions we prepare and questions from the audience which has read all
> papers in advance. In this sense we thaught it seems to be manageable to
> have three panel discussions on the defined topics.
> >
> > What I do need NOW is a decision on the number of papers to accept: a)
> 14 (as proposed) or b) 11 (as outlined as an option) or c) even less (8).
> >
> > The result of the review for me gives a clear preference to accept 14
> papers as they do not overlap and provide good materials for a rich
> publicatioin in particular regarding tools for e2r. But this only makes
> sense when we do not base the symposium on paper presentations.
> >
> > The style of questions etc we can discuss in one of our telcos but I
> have to send out notifications today that we do not loose credit.
> >
> > So could I ask if you object against
> > - accepting 14 contributions
> > - running 3 panel discussions without paper presentations
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Klaus
> >
> >
> > a.Univ.Prof.Dr. Klaus Miesenberger
> > University of Linz, Institut Integriert Studieren
> > Altenbergerstrasse 69, A-4040 Linz
> > klaus.miesenberger@jku.at, http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at/
> > Tel: +43-732-2468-3751 Fax: ...-23751
> > International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs,
> ICCHP: http://www.icchp.org
> > International Camps on Computers&Communication, ICC:
> http://www.icc-camp.info/
> >
> > Association for the Advancement for Assistive Technology in Europe,
> AAATE: www.aaate.net
> > eAccess+ The eAccessibility newtork: www.eaccessplus.eu
> > Austrian Computer Society, OCG: www.ocg.at/
> >>>> Annika Nietzio <an@ftb-volmarstein.de> 05.11.2012 08:16 >>>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I agree with Christos that 14 papers in 2 hours is a tight schedule. It
> > is also a question of how good the audience will be able to follow the
> > presentation and discussion. A presenter who has only little time might
> > be tempted to speak faster and maybe even read out prepared written
> > notes. That happened at the Web metrics symposium. It was really hard to
> > follow.
> >
> > If we decide to allocate more time, I'd prefer one symposium with 3 hrs
> > instead of two telecons. It will be difficult to find a date in
> > December. Moreover, some opportunities for finding connections and
> > cross-references between the panel are lost.
> >
> > Regarding the additional preparation by the authors: I agree that we
> > shouldn't ask them to prepare more writing. I like the two options: Ask
> > the authors to prepare questions about other paper. And send out a set
> > of questions to all authors in the panel (without specifying who gets to
> > answer which question).
> >
> > By the way, how will the audience ask their questions? I expect that
> > written questions (via email, chat, twitter) will we much more efficient
> > than oral questions. Not only because the technical (sound / mic)
> > problems are avoided but also because chairs can select the most
> > interesting questions.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Annika
> >
> >
> > On 11/03/2012 07:27 PM, Christos Kouroupetroglou wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Summing up what the main pints...
> >> -We don't want to split in 2 days... (it might be unfair for some
> people)
> >> -We don't want to ask them to write more ... apart from having them
> >> write this will also mean that the audience should read more beforehand
> >> in order to be on track. Having 14 papers it's already enough material
> >> having additional questions might lead to an audience not able to follow
> >> and maybe asking questions already answered in written.
> >> -Presenters should have enough time to discuss their papers... but the
> >> audience should not get tired.
> >>
> >> Doing my math I see that having a slot of 2 hours would mean each
> >> presenter would have about 8 minutes (115/14 = 8,2) but schedule must be
> >> really strict. Given the time for asking questions too... this leaves
> >> about 7 minues for each presenter. If I was a presenter I would feel
> >> really pressed for time.
> >>
> >> Assuming we have 3 hours (180 minutes)... and two 5min breaks in between
> >> panels we are left with 165 minutes which is about 12mins for each
> >> presenter (165/14 = 11,78). Given also the time for asking questions,
> >> this leaves a bit more that 10 minutes for each presenter. This feels
> >> more comfortable and less stressful both for presenters and chairs. And
> >> it also gives enough time for breaks in between panels to clear our
> minds.
> >>
> >> Moreover, having also the starting and ending session taking about 40
> >> minutes and middle one being bigger (slightly over an hour) is also
> >> easier for audience to follow. It's like have a proper 3 course meal!
> >> Starter, main course and dessert. And that's exactly the actual meaning
> >> of a symposio in greek (a rich and delicious meal accompanied by
> >> discussions and spirits which lead to even more lively discussions).
> >>
> >> So, in my opinion the best solution would be a 3 hours symposio with 3
> >> panels (as Klaus described them) and short 5 min breaks in between. In
> >> that case... I would also consider the option of sending the presenters
> >> a request to prepare some questions for other presenters (within a
> >> panel) in case the chairs run out of ideas or the audience isn't that
> >> "brave".
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Christos.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/11/3 Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org <mailto:shadi@w3.org>>
> >>
> >>       Hi Yeliz,
> >>
> >>       We discussed that on the last call and there was concern that
> >>       authors may get frustrated about being required to write yet more
> >>       material, in particular where such a requirement was not made
> clear
> >>       from the start.
> >>
> >>       Best,
> >>          Shadi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>       On 2.11.2012 21:21, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
> >>
> >>               Hi All,
> >>
> >>               What about sending the prepared questions to all authors
> before
> >>               the panel and asking them to write their answers back to
> the
> >>               organisers. These could then be published before the
> symposium
> >>               to all attendees. These answers can then be published as
> part of
> >>               the note. The symposium will then have three panels
> (actual
> >>               panels) as specified below:
> >>
> >>               Panel A: Guidelines (25 min)
> >>                  - each author can take turn and highlight the main
> challenge
> >>               that they address with their work.
> >>                  - open questions
> >>               Panel B: Tools (60 min)
> >>               - each author can take turn and highlight the main
> challenge
> >>               that they address with their work.
> >>                  - open questions
> >>               Panel C: Workflow, Process, Services (30 min)
> >>               - each author can take turn and highlight the main
> challenge
> >>               that they address with their work.
> >>               - open questions
> >>
> >>               I think these discussion sessions will be more
> productive. If
> >>               some of the authors will not participate in the
> discussions and
> >>               some are very talkative, it will then be the chairs who
> will
> >>               monitor these and will make sure that each author in each
> >>               session will have time to speak.
> >>
> >>               I think having a longer session will not work. It is very
> >>               difficult to follow an online symposium after sometime.
> It can
> >>               get tiring and I think having two symposium will mean
> that the
> >>               first one might be more popular and will not be fair to
> the
> >>               authors who will present their paper in the second
> symposium.
> >>               However, with the proposed format above, each author will
> have
> >>               chance to speak (not present their work but mainly
> summarise the
> >>               challenge[1] they address) and have good discussion
> around each
> >>               theme.
> >>
> >>               Regards,
> >>               Yeliz.
> >>
> >>               [1] Have you seen Tiny Transactions on Computer Science
> >>               (TinyToCS) <http://tinytocs.org/>? This is a similar
> idea...You
> >>               can ask authors that if they were asked to twit about
> their
> >>               paper, how would they twit about the challenge they
> address in
> >>               their paper? Short and concise :))
> >>
> >>               On 2 Nov 2012, at 16:19, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> >>
> >>                       Hi Simon, Klaus,
> >>
> >>                       One of the concerns of doing 2 teleconferences is
> that (a)
> >>                       the new teleconference time was never
> pre-announced and may
> >>                       be disadvantaging to the papers being discussed
> during that
> >>                       teleconference, (b) we have the TC4R symposium
> just two
> >>                       weeks before, and, (c) it is difficult to get
> people attend
> >>                       another teleconference shortly before Christmas.
> >>
> >>                       I think we need to either reduce the accepted
> paper or
> >>                       allocate more time for the teleconference in a
> format that
> >>                       does not disadvantage any of the papers (like
> doing a "group
> >>                       1" and a "group 2" format).
> >>
> >>                       Best,
> >>                          Shadi
> >>
> >>
> >>                       On 2.11.2012 12:16, Simon Harper wrote:
> >>
> >>                               Hi Klaus,
> >>
> >>                               we did panel sessions with questions for
> the Mobile -
> >>                               but it was still
> >>                               took ages...
> >>
> >>                               Si.
> >>
> >>
> >>                               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
> >>                               http://simon.harper.name/ about/card/
> >>                               <http://simon.harper.name/about/card/>
> >>
> >>                               University of Manchester (UK)
> >>                               Web Ergonomics Lab - Information
> Management Group
> >>                               http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
> >>
> >>                               On 02/11/2012 11:04, Klaus Miesenberger
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>                                       Good to hear from you Simon -
> hope you are well back!
> >>
> >>
> >>                                       This is also my concern. My
> understanding was that
> >>                                       we do not run a
> >>                                       traditional presentation of
> papers but a discussion
> >>                                       with the panel of
> >>                                       authors.
> >>
> >>                                       Participant har read the papers
> and we do not ask
> >>                                       for presentation.
> >>
> >>
> >>                                       If we ask for presentaitons, I
> would also opt for 2
> >>                                       symposia (e.g. a
> >>                                       week inbetween.
> >>
> >>
> >>                                       In the last telco my
> understanding was that we
> >>                                       should go away from
> >>                                       presenting papers but making it
> more disussion based.
> >>
> >>
> >>                                       Klaus
> >>
> >>
> >>                                       a.Univ.Prof.Dr. Klaus Miesenberger
> >>                                       University of Linz, Institut
> Integriert Studieren
> >>                                       Altenbergerstrasse 69, A-4040 Linz
> >>                                       klaus.miesenberger@jku.at
> >>                                       <mailto:klaus.miesenberger@jku.at
> >,
> >>                                       http://www.integriert-
> studieren.jku.at/
> >>                                       <
> http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at/>
> >>                                       Tel: +43-732-2468-9232<tel:%2B43-732-2468-9232>
> >>                                       Fax: ...-9322
> >>
> >>                                       International Conference on
> Computers Helping People
> >>                                       with Special
> >>                                       Needs, ICCHP:
> http://www.icchp.org
> >>                                       International Camps on
> Computers&Communication, ICC:
> >>                                       http://www.icc-camp.info/
> >>                                       Association for the Advancement
> for Assistive
> >>                                       Technology in Europe,
> >>                                       AAATE: www.aaate.net <
> http://www.aaate.net>
> >>                                       <http://www.aaate.net>
> >>                                       eAccess+ The eAccessibility
> newtork:
> >>                                       www.eaccessplus.eu <
> http://www.eaccessplus.eu>
> >>                                       <http://www.eaccessplus.eu>
> >>                                       Austrian Computer Society, OCG:
> www.ocg.at/
> >>                                       <http://www.ocg.at/> <
> http://www.ocg.at/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>                                                               Simon
> Harper
> >>                                                               <
> simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk
> >>                                                               <mailto:
> simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk> >
> >>                                                               2.11.2012
> 11:13 AM >>>
> >>
> >>                                       Hi Klaus,
> >>
> >>                                       this is really great news - I
> agree wrt 1 and 2  -
> >>                                       my worry is that we
> >>                                       won't be able to run through all
> papers in the time
> >>                                       we have available. I
> >>                                       wonder if it is worth having 2
> symposiums and 1 note?
> >>
> >>                                       Si.
> >>
> >>
> >>                                       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
> >>                                       http://simon.harper.name/about/card/
> >>                                       <
> http://simon.harper.name/about/card/>
> >>
> >>                                       University of Manchester (UK)
> >>                                       Web Ergonomics Lab - Information
> Management Group
> >>                                       http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
> >>
> >>                                       On 02/11/2012 08:50, Klaus
> Miesenberger wrote:
> >>
> >>                                               Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >>                                               unfortunatly Sandy blew
> away our telco this week
> >>                                                 - I do hope that
> >>                                               Simon and others are not
> affected too much by this.
> >>
> >>                                               Following our timeline we
> have to notify
> >>                                               submitters about
> acceptance
> >>                                               or decline of papers for
> the symposium - that's
> >>                                               what I wanted to
> >>                                               discuss on Wednesday.
> >>
> >>                                               Here is a proposal,
> following a chair meeting we
> >>                                               did in Linz, for both
> >>                                               acceptance and symposium
> structure (numbers
> >>                                               refer to the list
> attached)
> >>
> >>                                               A) Acceptance our of 17
> submissions
> >>                                               1) Clear accept for 11
> papers: 8, 11, 2, 3, 9,
> >>                                               12, 13, 17, 4, 16, 10
> >>                                               2) Tend to accept for 3
> papers: 6, 5, 15
> >>                                               3) Not accept for 3
> papers: 1, 7, 14
> >>
> >>                                               Our suggestion is to
> accept 1) and 2) due to the
> >>                                               following reasons:
> >>                                               a) They all provide very
> valuable information on
> >>                                               a new topic; pushing
> >>                                               this field as a new
> research area merits to
> >>                                               include a broad
> perspective
> >>                                               b) It is hard to evaluate
> on basis of short
> >>                                               abstracts. The difference
> >>                                               in quality is not that
> high.
> >>                                               c) And most important:
> Selecting these  14
> >>                                               papers would support a
> fine
> >>                                               structuring of the
> symposium:
> >>
> >>                                               B) Thematic Grouping of
> 14 papers:
> >>                                               1) Guidelines and WCAG
> update: 4,9,10
> >>                                               2) Tools: 2,(5), (6), 12,
> 13, (15), 17
> >>                                               3) Workflow, Process,
> Services: 3, 8, 11, 16
> >>
> >>                                               C) Programme
> >>                                               INTRODUCTION (5 min)
> >>                                               Panel A: Guidelines (25
> min)
> >>                                                        - prepared
> questions to all panelists (15)
> >>                                                        - open questions
> (10)
> >>                                               Panel B: Tools (60 min)
> >>                                                        - prepared
> question to all panelists (40)
> >>                                                        - open questions
> (20)
> >>                                               Panel C: Workflow,
> Process, Services (30 min)
> >>                                                        - prepared
> questions to all panelists (20)
> >>                                                        - open questions
> (10)
> >>                                               Follow up discussion for
> interested people
> >>                                               Before sending out
> notifications I wanted to ask
> >>                                               if the group could
> >>                                               basically agree to this
> strucutre. I will inform
> >>                                               all contributors that
> >>                                               the notification will be
> delayed till Monday.
> >>                                               Therefore I would need
> >>                                               feedback till Monday noon
> next week.
> >>
> >>                                               Many thanks
> >>                                               Klaus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>                                               a.Univ.Prof.Dr. Klaus
> Miesenberger
> >>                                               University of Linz,
> Institut Integriert Studieren
> >>                                               Altenbergerstrasse 69,
> A-4040 Linz
> >>                                               klaus.miesenberger@jku.at
> >>                                               <mailto:
> klaus.miesenberger@jku.at>
> >>                                               <mailto:
> klaus.miesenberger@ jku.at
> >>                                               <mailto:
> klaus.miesenberger@jku.at>>,
> >>
> >>                                       http://www.integriert-
> studieren.jku.at/
> >>                                       <
> http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at/>
> >>
> >>
> >>                                               Tel: +43-732-2468-3751<tel:%2B43-732-2468-3751>
> >>                                               Fax: ...-23751
> >>                                               International Conference
> on Computers Helping
> >>                                               People with Special
> >>                                               Needs, ICCHP:
> http://www.icchp.org
> >>                                               <http://www.icchp.org/>
> >>                                               International Camps on
> Computers&Communication, ICC:
> >>                                               http://www.icc-camp.info/
> >>                                               Association for the
> Advancement for Assistive
> >>                                               Technology in Europe,
> >>                                               AAATE: www.aaate.net <
> http://www.aaate.net>
> >>                                               <http://www.aaate.net/>
> >>                                               eAccess+ The
> eAccessibility newtork:
> >>                                               www.eaccessplus.eu <
> http://www.eaccessplus.eu>
> >>                                               <
> http://www.eaccessplus.eu/>
> >>                                               Austrian Computer
> Society, OCG: www.ocg.at/
> >>                                               <http://www.ocg.at/> <
> http://www.ocg.at/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>                       --
> >>                       Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
> >>                       <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)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>       --
> >>       Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/ shadi/
> >>       <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 Monday, 5 November 2012 22:54:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 22:54:59 GMT