RE: Understanding where the remote meetings work fits


Hi everyone

+1 to Janina's summary. Clear as mud indeed! 

Look forward to chatting about it in the call. 

Scott. 


Dr Scott Hollier 
Digital Access Specialist 
Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909
Web: www.hollier.info
 
Technology for everyone
 
Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> 
Sent: Monday, 30 August 2021 8:01 PM
To: Joshue O'Connor <joconnor@w3.org>
Cc: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>; public-rqtf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Understanding where the remote meetings work fits

A couple quick reactions ...

Joshue O Connor writes:
> Thanks both for your perspectives on where this fits. The challenge is 
> to make it work well with existing WAI resources, and we should devote 
> some time on the upcoming call to make a decision about its direction.
> 
Yes, please. Let's decide.

> FWIW, I think it is useful as a note, particularly as a sister 
> document to our RTC doc, but it could equally work as an informative 
> resource in the WAI website.
> 

OK, APA has experience with publishing Notes, and I'm attracted to the new W3C Statement category in the draft process update. However, APA has never before participated in "informative resource[s] in the WAI website." So, if EO wants this doc, and RQTF is open to handing it over, I won't complain. But, I'd like some clarity, and soon, because it's time to get wide review if we're keeping this doc in RQTF. Also, I'm unaware there's any published process around "Wai website resources."
What does that mean? How are they accomplished? I'm uncomfortable keeping development in APA where the "website resource" is so nebulous.

I really think this is a question of what Judy wants to see going forward. I'm not aware she's ready to commit one way or another.

So, I suppose our direction forward is clear as mud?

Janina

> HTH
> 
> Josh
> 
> White, Jason J wrote on 27/08/2021 14:22:
> > Thank you, Scott, for giving consideration to this question. My 
> > personal view (not as Co-Facilitator, but as a Task Force 
> > participant) is that it could readily be published as an APA Working 
> > Group Note – a byproduct, one might suggest, of our related 
> > investigation of real-time communication accessibility.
> > 
> > There is overlap here with the scope of the Education and Outreach 
> > Working Group, as has I think been acknowledged previously by others.
> > They should at least be invited to review it. They may not wish to 
> > take over responsibility for it, due to their existing workload. 
> > Thus I suspect (though this is purely informed speculation) that it 
> > is we who will need to carry it to publication, if we want it to be 
> > published in the near term. Clarification of the collaboration 
> > opportunities with EO would be valuable, however.
> > 
> > The alternative to note status would be something less formal, 
> > published on the W3C/WAI Web site, I suppose. I don’t know whether 
> > there are established process expectations in that case. I agree 
> > with Janina that this document would benefit from undergoing the 
> > formal public reviews that note-track documents receive. The 
> > messaging associated with it could be awkward due to a perception of 
> > overlap with other work, and the relationship with Education and 
> > Outreach. On the other hand, it seems to me we do wish it to receive 
> > public attention, for otherwise it won’t achieve its purpose of influencing practice.
> > 
> > A third option would be to divide it up and to feed the components 
> > to other working groups and other document development efforts. The 
> > problem, from my perspective, with this option is that there 
> > currently don’t appear to be good destinations for the pieces that 
> > we would expect to be published within a reasonable amount of time.
> > 
> > Do we want it published soon, in an approximation of its present 
> > form, and with formal public review? If so, then the Note track is 
> > the best established path, but a less formal publication would also be an option.
> > In either case, this Task Force will most probably end up taking the 
> > responsibility for completing it, unless EO want extra work or would 
> > contemplate a joint arrangement with APA.
> > 
> > Obviously, the assumptions on which I’m founding these comments 
> > could be mistaken. They’re only my personal views and perceptions – 
> > and somewhat speculative.
> > 
> > *From:* Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 26 August 2021 20:18
> > *To:* public-rqtf@w3.org
> > *Subject:* Understanding where the remote meetings work fits
> > 
> > *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do 
> > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
> > and know the content is safe.*
> > 
> > To the RQTF
> > 
> > Thanks to Janina providing this link:
> > 
> > https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#Reports 
> > <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw

> > ww.w3.org%2F2020%2FProcess-20200915%2F%23Reports&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwh
> > ite%40ets.org%7C667b0c2fe6e24b10e7f908d968f03810%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae9
> > 2f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656203236114512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d
> > 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
> > 7C1000&sdata=jYZ0zMBYRLsMu2IdGLGpD%2B6%2Fz%2FPN2OyVJa%2BMd0MvM6g%3D&
> > reserved=0>
> > 
> > and a few others, I’m of the view that the remote meetings draft 
> > seems to fit the requirements for being progressed into a Note base 
> > don the definitions.  I had a concern previously that as it provides 
> > guidance to multiple audiences it may be an  issue but I can’t see 
> > this defined as an issue specifically.
> > 
> > What do others think?  I’m still not entirely clear on the 
> > difference between a Note, a resource and statement in terms of 
> > defining the work so it’d be helpful to discuss on list before our next meeting.
> > 
> > Thanks everyone,
> > 
> > Scott.
> > 
> > Scott Hollier logo*Dr Scott Hollier *
> > 
> > Digital Access Specialist
> > 
> > Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909
> > 
> > Web: www.hollier.info 
> > <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fww

> > w.hollier.info%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C667b0c2fe6e24b1
> > 0e7f908d968f03810%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C63765
> > 6203236124507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
> > luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VZyXtS9Fy6n8%2BeNP
> > %2F%2BqDjAc%2BLKG7aCiLOjoIAZEgMfY%3D&reserved=0>
> > 
> > Technology for everyone
> > 
> > Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fscotthollier&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C667b0c2fe6e24b10e7f908d968f03810%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656203236124507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DAdQ%2F8DVbZ5TecsUjmpZYHXTs3KPkKXUZ2Gy2LUwXHg%3D&reserved=0>.
> > 
> > *From:* Scott Hollier
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 26 August 2021 10:16 AM
> > *To:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>; 
> > public-rqtf@w3.org <mailto:public-rqtf@w3.org>
> > *Subject:* RE: Editorial revisions to Accessibility of Remote 
> > Meetings
> > 
> > To the RQTF
> > 
> > Thanks for that Jason. I had a read through prior to yesterday’s 
> > meeting and it’s looking really good at this stage, great work.
> > 
> > Also from the meeting, I’d like to follow up on Janina’s comment 
> > that we need to identify what we’re doing with this, and by memory 
> > we agreed two weeks ago that there was plans to discuss on the WAI 
> > call
> > 
> > That said, I’m thinking that as a group we can help progress what we 
> > think is best for the document, and for me it’d really help if I 
> > could read some definitions as to how W3C defines particular 
> > documents. Is there a link where it specifically explains the 
> > differences between Note, resource and statement?  I thinkthis’d be 
> > helpful in the review to see what definitions line up best with the 
> > content at the moment and make some decisions Abou it going forward.
> > 
> > Thanks everyone,
> > 
> > Scott.
> > 
> > Scott Hollier logo*Dr Scott Hollier *
> > 
> > Digital Access Specialist
> > 
> > Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909
> > 
> > Web: www.hollier.info 
> > <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fww

> > w.hollier.info%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C667b0c2fe6e24b1
> > 0e7f908d968f03810%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C63765
> > 6203236134482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
> > luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2F31kQIXkkCQJz9uP
> > kLZH%2BkgwlKPaCOLKKaf2VB8WTmk%3D&reserved=0>
> > 
> > Technology for everyone
> > 
> > Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fscotthollier&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C667b0c2fe6e24b10e7f908d968f03810%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656203236134482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=eTy97d37%2F6n2KdFA7StyP6uV0X7ZJm0iHJ9E7tYU6KY%3D&reserved=0>.
> > 
> > *From:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 26 August 2021 4:07 AM
> > *To:* public-rqtf@w3.org <mailto:public-rqtf@w3.org>
> > *Subject:* RE: Editorial revisions to Accessibility of Remote 
> > Meetings
> > 
> > Dear colleagues,
> > 
> > Time constraints did not permit us to discuss these proposed changes 
> > to Accessibility of Remote Meetings today. Thus, any review that you 
> > can offer prior to next week’s meeting would be welcome in order to 
> > facilitate progress.
> > 
> > I also anticipate further discussion of our publication plans for 
> > this document (raised briefly at today’s meeting, but likely to be 
> > considered more fully next week).
> > 
> > The original note regarding the changes is reproduced for convenience below.
> > 
> > *From:* White, Jason J
> > *Sent:* Friday, 20 August 2021 11:36
> > *To:* public-rqtf@w3.org <mailto:public-rqtf@w3.org>
> > *Subject:* Editorial revisions to Accessibility of Remote Meetings
> > 
> > Dear colleagues,
> > 
> > I have reorganized aspects of the Accessibility of Remote Meetings 
> > draft, while introducing clarificatory, editorial changes.
> > 
> > The pull request on GitHub is at
> > https://github.com/w3c/apa/pull/227 
> > <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fg

> > ithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fapa%2Fpull%2F227&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%
> > 7C667b0c2fe6e24b10e7f908d968f03810%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b6
> > 5%7C0%7C0%7C637656203236144477%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wL
> > jAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=U
> > gz5Kxl7rD4ei7IKh9%2Fk9Ma3u91tMdas0mHa%2FGwIR7w%3D&reserved=0>
> > 
> > The proposed text is rendered at
> > https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/remote-meetings-clarification/remote

> > -meetings/ 
> > <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fr

> > aw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fapa%2Fremote-meetings-clarification%2Fremote-
> > meetings%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C667b0c2fe6e24b10e7f90
> > 8d968f03810%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C63765620323
> > 6144477%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi
> > LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=UbjhM9ed5lFs3mIWJFIhNbYg
> > RX9FyVjnBMr9kHTKVik%3D&reserved=0>
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > 
> > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged 
> > or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual 
> > for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you 
> > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not 
> > disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the 
> > contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any 
> > other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> > 
> > Thank you for your compliance.
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > 
> > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged 
> > or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual 
> > for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you 
> > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not 
> > disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the 
> > contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any 
> > other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you for your compliance.
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Emerging Web Technology Specialist/Accessibility (WAI/W3C)

-- 

Janina Sajka
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka


Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org


The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2021 05:11:57 UTC