Re: about the Nov events

In the “delving into topics that could be relevant but aren't necessarily focused on specific W3C work areas” vein of thought, we need to be careful that our first official program post-merger for the wider publishing audience does not confirm fears or stereotypes of what will happen now.  The publishing audience is going to want to know how the post-merger Publishing@W3C is going to help solve fundamental issues in the industry and the supply chain, not how we will create even more work by new application paradigms.

Specifically, I’m thinking (and look for others to chime in) that the group being targeted is going to be wondering how Publishing@W3C is going to:
- Help solve the specific format for a specific channel “tax”
- Bring new rendering options to delight and engage users
- Get the browsers to support such new rendering options
- Reach new customers and markets
- Go beyond the book
- ….

-Rick
 

On 4/14/17, 9:48 AM, "Bill McCoy" <bmccoy@w3.org> wrote:

    Hi BillK,
    
    Just to be clear, in my fodder to Karen for the blurb the mentions of VR and
    IoT were semi-random, this was just in my mind a  placeholder for something
    where we would be hinting at (in the marketing pitch) and delivering on (in
    the content of the event) information about the many things going on around
    the Open Web Platform that promise to be relevant to publishing (in the
    broadest sense) that are NOT necessarily already on publishing folks radar
    (as, hopefully, Accessibility, Annotations, and Rights would be). I wasn't
    necessarily suggesting that VR and IoT deserved special treatment or even
    top billing. And I could imagine delving into topics that could be relevant
    but aren't necessarily focused on specific W3C work areas (for example how
    Progressive Web Apps are increasingly an alternative to having to develop
    native mobile and desktop apps on multiple platforms).
    
    So, I solicit comments about this from the SC.
    
    Re: acronyms, I guess my $.02 is that VR is established as a consumer term
    but IoT should be spelled out... but that's not based on any particular data
    just a gut feeling...
    
    --Bill
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Kasdorf [mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com] 
    Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 7:59 AM
    To: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>; 'Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken'
    <tsiegman@wiley.com>; 'Dave Cramer' <dauwhe@gmail.com>
    Cc: 'Garth Conboy' <garth@google.com>; 'McCloy-Kelley, Liisa'
    <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>; 'Karen Myers' <karen@w3.org>; 'W3C
    Publishing Steering Committee' <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>; 'Karen Myers'
    <karen@w3.org>
    Subject: RE: about the Nov events
    
    I like the blurb--nice job. That, and your email, are both consistent with
    how I understood the event to be pitched.
    
    One copy question for the group: "other Web initiatives that will impact
    publishing from VR to Payments to IoT" picks sexy topics that will likely
    get people's attention, which may be exactly what we want to do. But from a
    practical point of view, things like Accessibility, Annotations, and POE
    (Rights) are of more practical interest and near-term use for most
    publishers than VR and IoT (I'd definitely keep Payments). Which pitch makes
    more sense for this? I can see arguments on both sides.
    
    --Bill K
    
    P.S. In my perpetual war against acronyms, I would point out that if we are
    trying to attract non-TPAC types, it would be better to spell out "Virtual
    Reality" and "Internet of Things" if we want to keep those two. I don't feel
    strongly about this because probably most people who will actually come will
    know what VR and IoT are. I just felt obligated to raise the point. ;) These
    are not as mystifying and exclusionary as A11y and I18n, which I would NEVER
    use in something going out to the general public.
    
    Bill Kasdorf
    VP and Principal Consultant | Apex CoVantage
    p:
    734-904-6252  m:   734-904-6252
    ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786

    ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786

    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill McCoy [mailto:bmccoy@w3.org]
    Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:36 AM
    To: 'Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken'; 'Dave Cramer'
    Cc: 'Garth Conboy'; 'McCloy-Kelley, Liisa'; Bill Kasdorf; 'Karen Myers';
    'W3C Publishing Steering Committee'; 'Karen Myers'
    Subject: RE: about the Nov events
    
    I fully agree with Tzviya that we don't want people working on publishing at
    W3C to be in a silo.
    
    But with respect to the Publishing@W3C Summit (Nov 9 & AM of Nov 10), the
    idea is that this would NOT be expected to draw its attendees primarily from
    the typical W3C TPAC audience, but more like for example the last two EPUB
    Summits or historical IDPF conferences. Even W3C members might send
    different people to the Publishing@W3C Summit than they send to other TPAC
    activities. This is a bit different than the "Publishing Community Meeting"
    in Lisbon which was set up as a chance for IDPF members to engage in W3C and
    visa-versa.  But, in line with the consensus at the PBG SC meeting in
    London, we are NOT aiming for C-level executives (who it was agreed are
    unlikely to come to a W3C event in SF).
    
    So in some sense some, maybe most, attendees at this event - certainly those
    from non-members and even some from members who are not interested in the
    nitty-gritty of spec development - *will* be siloed from other TPAC
    activities, but that's because of the goal of the event to attract a broader
    audience and because the event is mainly just opportunistically co-located
    with TPAC due to the accident of having extra space at the venue. There will
    be a very minimal extra cost to attend for members attending other TPAC week
    events so we hopefully will get some synergies but that is not the main
    goal.
    
    Draft of "blurb" about the Publishing@W3C Summit follows, this is my input
    to Karen (cc:) and I was planning to send to this group after her
    editing/rewriting but she's on a business trip so it may shorten the loop if
    folks made comments/suggestions now.
    
    Thanks,
    
    --Bill
    
    Publishing@W3C Summit Nov 9-10, 2017 San Francisco
    
    The Open Web Platform is enabling the future of publishing - join us at the
    first-ever Publishing@W3C Summit
    
    Digital publications afford the promise of reaching everyone, everywhere.
    But that doesn't work if your content is locked into proprietary vendor
    silos. The Open Web Platform, including key enablers like EPUB and HTML5, is
    the universal interoperable platform for content and experiences.
    Publishing@W3C Summit  is a one-and-a-half day conference that will cover
    how the Web Platform is enabling digital publishing to transcend the limits
    of the paper-replica era, covering the latest developments for EPUB and Web
    Publications as well as other aspects of the Open Web Platform. You'll hear
    from publishers across all segments of the diverse publishing industry and
    others who are successfully utilizing EPUB and Web Standards for content
    distribution, for content production, even for printing. You'll also learn
    about other Web initiatives that will impact publishing from VR to Payments
    to IoT.  Come away from this event with practical insights that you can put
    to use now, with a clear perspective on the future of publishing that, by
    participating in this Summit, you will help shape.
    
    Who should attend: senior leaders in technology, content management and
    production, and business strategy from book, magazine, academic and
    professional, and corporate publishing.
    
    Logistics: The Publishing@W3C Summit 2017 will take place at the Hyatt
    Regency San Francisco Airport, conveniently located in Burlingame, 3 miles
    from SFO, in between San Francisco and  Silicon Valley. Early-bird
    registration will open May 1, 2017. The Publishing@W3C Summit is open to the
    public, but will be co-located with W3C's annual meeting, TPAC. Participants
    participating in other TPAC activities will be able to register for the
    Publishing@W3C Summit for a nominal extra charge.
    
    Sponsorship opportunities are available. Content Bill McCoy (bmccoy@w3.org)
    or Karen Myers (karen@w3.org) for more information.
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken [mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 5:01 AM
    To: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>
    Cc: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>; McCloy-Kelley, Liisa
    <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>; Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org>; Bill
    Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>; Karen Myers <karen@w3.org>; W3C
    Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
    Subject: Re: about the Nov events
    
    I agree with Dave. While we want to make sure that there is publishing
    presence at TPAC, we also want to make sure that we don't silo ourselves off
    from other groups. It was a challenge last year to jump from the EPUB
    meetings to the ARIA meetings that I was supposed to be attending. Remote
    participation is essential for this community, especially the CG.
    Tzviya 
    
    Sent from my iPad
    
    > On Apr 11, 2017, at 8:34 PM, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 
    >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com> wrote:
    >> Re EPUB CG meeting... yes,, and Ivan pointed out that CG meetings are 
    >> generally just a couple of hours.  So, it seems that would be 
    >> potentially okay, overlapping with with Digital Publishing conference 
    >> (but not the Publishing WG or DPUB BG).  That's *if* we wanna have 
    >> that
    much Publishing!
    >> :-)
    > 
    > I want as many people as possible to participate in the community 
    > group, and having F2F meetings is an excellent way to limit 
    > participation to those with substantial amounts of time and money.
    > 
    > As it is, TPAC is going to be a huge problem for those of us who are 
    > in other working groups (CSS, HTML, WCAG, ARIA, etc.). If there are 
    > going to be future publishing summits co-located with TPAC, I'd urge 
    > that they be scheduled adjacent to rather than during TPAC.
    > 
    > Dave
    >

Received on Friday, 14 April 2017 17:39:46 UTC