W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [DPUB] 2014-11-03 notes from STEM task force meeting

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:01:46 +0100
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E757F7A-6573-43DF-A434-E5A2941F5801@w3.org>
To: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>

> On 03 Nov 2014, at 21:00 , Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Below are my notes from the TF call today.
> 
> This google doc has the current list of people we want to send the questionnaire to.
> 
> @everyone if you have a suggestion to add to that list, please send me a quick email. Thank you!

I have added some names and institutions to the google doc

> 
> @Ivan for the questionnaire, is there any W3C technology we could/should use? (Also, any policies we need to consider?)
> 

There is no "should". W3C does have a Web based questionnaire system that can be used:

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/ieapp/

that some of you have seen, is a typical example for that. It is not looking very pretty (it is more than 10 year's old system) but it works:-). The results are collected on the Web and, afaik, can be extracted in XML. Thierry or I can set it up if we have the right questions.

But if we want to use other systems, that is fine with me; you guys may know a better alternative.  

Ivan

> Best,
> Peter.
> 
> # 2014-11-03 STEM task force meeting
> 
> On call: Tim Cole, Peter Krautzberger, Bill Kasdorf, Tzviya Siegmann
> 
> * Peter: main topic: how to proceed with the questionnaire?
> * Peter: the current set of interview notes is here.
>   * Bill: good range of ppl
> * Tim: re survey
>   * single questionnaire (for pubs / authors/ practitioners) or separate targeted ones?
> * Tim: questions to help gather information from authors & consumers
>   * Bill: they are the same users!
> * Bill: what to cover?
>   * various issues on debate on the TPAC call
>     * e.g., do they care about 3D
> * Tzviya: what's the goal for today?
>   * Peter: figure out how we can turn interviews to questionnaire
>   * Tzviya: and survey informs STEM TF activity?
>     * Bill: it surfaces issues
>     * Tim: and create use cases 
> * Bill: include: what should they do now vs do in the future?
>   * e.g., data issue
>     * ppl in stem publishing consider it THE future problem
>     * but not yet actively pursuing
>   * sharing data
>     * ppl like having data shared
>     * but ppl don't like sharing
>       * Tzviya: maybe an exaggeration?
> * Tzviya: what are some questions?
> * Bill: we need to ask the right questions (to avoid "I just use PDF")
> * Tzviya: in IRC some ideas
>     (05:19:14 PM) tzviya: authoring, content types, data (perhaps in the future), target audiences/platforms
>     (05:20:47 PM) tzviya: citations and peer review?
>     (05:23:56 PM) TimCole: supporting teaching and classroom?
>     (05:24:51 PM) TimCole: supporting research using the article?
>   * Peter: what came up:
>     * authoring on/for the web
>     * peer review
>     * transition from PDF / generation of PDF
>     * XML vs HTML ("is XML paying off?")
>       * Bill: from pubs? [Yes] interesting... they all breathe 
> * Tim: textbook authors: how are you including other media (that go beyond PDF)?
> * Bill: supporting researchers
>   * if a researcher gets an article, what else would they like to get?
> * Tzviya: good list but not STEM specific.
> * Peter: yes, but the questionnaire probably need a place for this
>   * => agreed
> * Tim: "in these domains [...] what is missing"
>   * Tzviya: make it multiple choice?
>     * => agreed
>   * and then free form question at end
> * Tzviya: e.g., content types
>   * "In which of the following subjects do you publish"?
>     * "Do you encounter problems these subjects on the OWP /online?"
>     * Do you publishg as live content or images? Why?
>   * make it easy to use and easy to interpret?
> * Peter: how can we get around "it's not in HTML5"?
>   * Tzviya: do you author / archive in one format and publish it in another?
>   * Bill: is there value in publishing this in a more interop way?
>     * e.g., a microscopy image doesn't need more than image
>     * but a molecule might need interactive 3D 
> * Tim: capture disconnect between authoring/using information and how they put it on the web
>   * Tzviya: do you author & archive in the same format that your customers view it in?  If not, why? / Please explain!
>   * Tzviya: thinking of surveymonkey?
>     * => agreed
> * Bill: ppl will be authors and users
>     * "Which formats would you like to get as reader"?
> * Tim: ppl will say "I use PDF b/c it works / images work"?
> * Tzviya: Wiley will give complex answers
>   * e.g., math sometimes MathML, sometimes image, depending on various factors
> * Bill: ppl might not know different formats
> * Tim: multiple choice = we want an answer for sure
>   * otherwise: have stuff that they might not know open ended / optional
> * Tzviya: has anybody done this before?
>   * => no...
>   * Tim: we should pick some guinea pigs
>     * 2-3 guniea pigs
>       * Bill: need to surface "oops, they misinterpreted"
> * Tzviya: let's ask Ivan re W3C for survey tools
> * Tim: do we need to work on the list of names?
>   * Tzviya: bring in IG to suggest names
> * [talk about list of names]
> * Tzviya: need more traditional publishers
>   * Bill: AASP, ALPS? => hundreds of people?
>   * Tzviya: specific people
>     * SPI
>     * Aptara
>     * Kindle
> * Peter: let's add names to the list document
>   * indicate name and reference (public document => No email sharing of third parties, please)
> * Tzviya: Peter will you get started?
>   * Peter: yes, I'll get started
>     * then circle questionnaire to TF and IG
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 12:02:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:53 UTC