Revised 2nd Draft: Research process

I'm attaching as a text document.

Please note the introductory comment regarding an emerging W3C/WAI
publication process. This was introduced this morning by Michael during
the WAI Coordination Call. More news will follow, but I expect it's fair
to say our conversations have fed into Michael's desire to provide more
structure to research efforts across WAI groups.

Thanks, Scott, for the excellent first draft. My apologies that my
earlier effort failed to post--but it's probably resulting in cleaner
copy for Jason to generate HTML from! <smile>

Janina

Scott Hollier writes:
> 
> To the RQTF
> 
> As discussed on Wednesday, here's my understanding of our research processes, especially during our AUR document developments.   Please edit/change as needed.
> 
> RQTF RESEARCH PROCESS
> 
> This is a short summary of the process followed by RQTF when commencing the development of its work.
> 
> 
>   1.  A topic is raised in an RQTF meeting. As discussion progresses, a view is formed that the topic is important to explore and in accordance with the RQTF Charter.
>   2.  RQTF members commence a literature search on the topic. The search is initially broad and includes peer-reviewed publications such as conference papers, journal articles and credible news sources. The sources and databases may vary based on the academic institution but are cross-checked internally to ensure they are credible sources.
>   3.  The results of the broad search are then published to a wiki.
>   4.  The broad literature is then reviewed. Literature that is not focused enough or off-topic is removed, while key words and published authors in the relevant area are identified.
>   5.  RQTF discussions determine if the research area has enough merit to continue its development.
>   6.  If the development is to continue, more targeted reiterative searches are then performed to develop a more focused literature review. As the papers are reviewed, literature summaries are added to the wiki and discussions occur on the RQTF mailing list to continue the refinement of the list.
>   7.  Once the initial list of refences and summaries are exhausted by the group, invitations are provided to other working groups to review and provide an opportunity to also feed in research, key words and other information to assist in identifying more papers in the process. Additional papers are reviewed and reference notes made.
>   8.  Prominent authors of peer-reviewed papers and other relevant literature are contacted where possible to further support contributions. Interviews may be conducted and other leads are explored.
>   9.  Once the review process is exhausted and some time has been allowed for additional information to be provided by other groups, development begins on developing the work such as a Note.
>   10. Once the RQTF members have all worked on a collaborative wiki, the wiki is then moved to GitHub to provide editorial and version control oversight.
>   11. W3C groups are invited to contribute to the early draft as the work develops.
>   12. Once the draft has reached an appropriate standard, a first public working draft is proposed and published to support feedback from the wider community.
>   13. Comments and issues are individually logged in GitHub and work recommended on addressing the feedback.
>   14. Second and possibly third public working drafts are developed, continuing to encourage feedback to improve the work.
>   15. Once all issues are addressed, the final Call for Consensus is circulated and the work is published.
> 
> 
> In terms of agenda items for our COGA meeting, what I'd like to see is for both groups to have a clear understanding as to what COGA can provide to the process, and agreed timeframes on specifically when that feedback will be provided. To take the CTWAR for example, we provided an invitation for input but to date haven't received any information to support the development . Given the -1 in the CFC it seems there's interest in the work, so addressing the disconnect in how to get feedback in a timely manner so both groups have certainty in contributing and developing RQTF work would be helpful.  Specific feedback from COGA could include key words, prominent authors in the area and know benefits or issues known to COGA for RQTF to research.
> 
> Scott.
> 
> 
> Dr Scott Hollier
> CEO & Co-founder
> [Centre for Accessibility Australia logo]<https://www.accessibility.org.au/>
> Centre For Accessibility Australia Ltd.
> Phone: +61 (0)430 351 909
> Email: scott.hollier@accessibility.org.au<mailto:scott.hollier@accessibility.org.au>
> Address: Suite 5, Belmont Hub, 213 Wright Street, Cloverdale WA 6105
> 
> accessibility.org.au<https://www.accessibility.org.au/>
> Subscribe to our newsletter<http://eepurl.com/drA-ib>
> [Instagram icon]<https://www.instagram.com/centreforaccessibility/> [Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/centreforaccessibility>  [Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/centrefora11y>  [LinkedIn icon] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/centreforaccessibility/>
> 
> CFA Australia respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Owners of Country across Australia and pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging
> 







-- 

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

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

Linux Foundation Fellow
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/