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

Re: [important] group input on Easy-to-Read symposium

From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:14:40 +0000
Message-ID: <50ADDEF0.3080206@manchester.ac.uk>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>, Klaus Miesenberger <Klaus.Miesenberger@jku.at>, Andrea Petz <Andrea.Petz@jku.at>, Kerstin Matausch <Kerstin.Matausch@ki-i.at>
Hi Shadi,
let me take these in order:
1) looks good.
2) I (and most of the group - all except Kerstin) want the normal
system / I support this - if we have to limit attendees then we have
no choice.
3) I think this is an author issue, Klaus can we send the ones with
coding errors back - this is how it's normally done at conferences as
authors are the stakeholders with more invested than anyone else and
so are more likely to do the work - and it is the editors
responsibility to get them changed - Klaus this is how it works at
ICCHP right?
4) I think the chairs seem to have everything in hand and we have
meeting next week only for these comments too.



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 21/11/12 08:02, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Dear Group and E2R symposium co-chairs,
> In lieu of this week's meeting I'd like to get your input via
> mail.
> #1. Please review the updated symposium page and let us know any 
> thoughts you may have -- the symposium co-chairs are working on
> the agenda section but otherwise it should be ready: -
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2012/easy-to-read/>
> #2. Please share your thoughts on teleconferencing system -- The
> setup for TC4R worked quite well but it is limited to ~50
> participants (we had 40+ participants). There are benefits to allow
> more participants but also drawbacks (more noise and chatter, less
> focused discussion, more overhead to manage, ...), most
> importantly, the other system we tried didn't have the same level
> of quality -- we need to decide!
> #3. Some of the listed papers have character-encoding bugs that
> crept in during the QA process (how ironic!) -- any volunteers to
> help clean up the HTML in some of these papers?
> #4. Please share any other thoughts about potential questions to
> raise, discussion to have, or other suggestions you may have for
> the co-chairs to consider for the symposium -- they are preparing
> now.
> Thanks, Shadi
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 08:15:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:43 UTC