- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:19:16 -0500
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Cc: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
James Craig writes: > On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > > > I also don't understand the proposal to shorten the meeting's running > > time? > > It's about using less time more efficiently and effectively. > > > It seems we're never short of agenda in 90 minutes? > > In my opinion, much of the meeting discussion is not worthy of weekly group time. With a well-organized agenda and dedication to staying on topics that actually require group discussion, I believe we could bring this meeting down well under an hour. Perhaps under half an hour. If we had short meetings that always stayed on topic, we'd get more participation from the UA and AT vendors that are currently missing from these discussions. Examples? > > > So, what's the rationale for the proposal? > > The implementors we need in these meetings have incredibly busy schedules. Even 60 minutes a week is a lot to ask. The current 90 minutes is way too much. So, shortening to 60 will bring more implementers, but shortening to 30 would bring yet more? Yet, how are they to be heard, with less time per implementer? This logic seems quite strange to me. Janina > -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Email: janina@rednote.net Linux Foundation Fellow Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 19:19:40 UTC