W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > February 2017

Minutes of 10 February 2017 Silver Teleconference

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:59:14 -0500
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <74902e22-723e-e92d-56bd-4e59ad6d39d5@spellmanconsulting.com>
HTML Formatted minutes:

Text of Minutes:


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                     Silver Task Force Teleconference

10 Feb 2017

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/10-silver-irc


           Shawn, Jan, David, MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah

           jeanne, shawn



      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]check in on research
          2. [5]research next steps
          3. [6]Review literature review wiki
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions

    <scribe> Scribe: Lauriat

check in on research

    David: Followed up with each researcher, shared questions,
    asked them for additional questions that they'd like to add.
    Some have responded, one said he'd email the list, but hasn't
    ... Will follow up.
    ... Many haven't yet responded, but we can assume due to their
    initial responses that their interest still applies as
    originally stated.
    ... One response from there in Scotland about timing issues
    between the academic calendar and Silver's timeline. Responded
    that we hope to have some flexibility with the timing to allow
    for this.

    Sarah: We came to that conclusion on Tuesday.

    Jeanne: Looking at the timeline, we have a longer block of
    time. We have researching finishing in August, but analysis
    follows for quite some time after, so we could have some of
    them finishing up closer to September - November timeline. As
    long as not all follow that, that delay seems fine for some.

    David: Most people indicating time constraints want to get
    started quite soon, many mentioned March specifically.


       [9] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bsqv595CnSzmUa2Tv53duudNvn_ExTW6xGx-6_ECM7c/edit#gid=0

    David: So it'd make sense to initially focus on those

    Jeanne: What do we do from here to get started?

    David: We should go through each of the individuals, summarize
    what they want to do, and start talking with them about how to
    make that happen.
    ... If we have a number of projects that we want to do, and
    some projects happen in more than one place, that's not
    necessarily a bad thing.

    Shawn: Do we have TF partners, or should we do that now?

    David: Once we've confirmed their interest and focus, then we
    can assign TF partners based on that.

    Jeanne: We talked on Tuesday about the responses we've received
    so far, and each of us volunteered (or volunteered someone) as
    a partner for those.

    Sarah: We decided that initial follow-up would come from David,
    making introductions with their TF partner chosen for those in


      [10] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2017Feb/0011.html

    <jemma_> Tyson McMillan, Assessing the Accessibility of Web 2.0
    The American Society for Information Science & Technology,
    November 2009

    <jeanne> Jan was interested in being a partner in Tyson
    McMillan's education-related project

    <jeanne> Jeanne was interested in Michael Heron's project ->

      [11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2017Feb/0010.html

    <jeanne> Shawn wanted to partner Scott Hollier's project on
    flexibility ->

      [12] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2017Feb/0009.html

    Sarah: I differentiated between leads and partners, so maybe we
    can go through that today.
    ... We could just assign the partners out right now, and then
    adjust as needed, just to get things rolling. Then you, David,
    can reach out and make introductions so we can get started.


    David: We should start filling in that column A with research
    questions so that we can plan out the work and allocate it to
    those available to work on it.


      [13] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Research_Projects#Proposed_Research_Questions

    Jeanne: Let's try to focus people on what we know we really
    need, but research outside of that will still prove very
    valuable. We just don't want to see people repeat research
    already well established.

    David: Let's start with the questions, think about what kind of
    data would help answer that question, and then map out the
    activities that would bring out that data.

    Sarah: I think we should reach back out to the researchers,
    since they'll have their own thoughts on what kinds of
    activities would do that.

    Shawn: I think it would make sense to go with what David
    described, and then reach out to researchers with the drafted
    proposal of what to do for the research methods, but ask them
    their opinion of that as a sanity check.

    Sarah: Should we move on from assigning partners, then?

    Jeanne: No, let's do it now.


      [14] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f-7FUfhht8TpOdRKdYYpXOt2hxZ6p7oXDOyMWZMLQL0/edit#gid=0

    [doing do now]

    <jemma_> . Watanabe: International and national standard
    harmonization and achievement effort of web accessibility in

research next steps

    David: I'll now allocate research questions to each activity,
    and then we can match the researchers with the activities and
    questions to get started. Then, each partner can reach out with
    that information and a starting proposal.

    Sarah: We have these TF leads in the spreadsheet. As TF
    partners, we should make sure to loop in the leads so that they
    can each coordinates things from there.


      [15] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bsqv595CnSzmUa2Tv53duudNvn_ExTW6xGx-6_ECM7c/edit#gid=0

    David: Each coordinator, please also review the questions that
    I've put in column A, just to make sure as well.


      [16] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f-7FUfhht8TpOdRKdYYpXOt2hxZ6p7oXDOyMWZMLQL0/edit#gid=0

    Jeanne: As we get started working with the researchers, we
    should document the limitations and difficulties that we have
    in interacting with them so that we can work together to figure
    those out. Let's plan on doing that next Friday.

Review literature review wiki


      [17] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Literature_Review

    Jemma: Jeanne helped me set up the wiki yesterday, but I have
    three questions
    ... I structured this by questions, targets, but want feedback
    from you as to how we will structure all of this.
    ... Are you thinking it'd be good to have all of the references
    in this page?

    Jeanne: Yes! Really, to help you, but also helpful for others
    to have access to this information.

    David: Lots of the researchers will have already done some form
    of literature review, and we don't need to repeat that. We
    should get that sort of information from the researchers as to
    what they've already covered, for instance as part of PhD
    thesis work including literature reviews.

    Jemma: Do you have recommendations for how to structure this

    David: It depends on the purpose of the review. Capturing
    references, or what the references say?

    Jemma: The latter.
    ... Maybe organizing by types, like analysis of WCAG
    adaptations, so that people can find things on that topic.

    David: Organizing references by research question seems like a
    good way to go. That might also prompt people to drop in more
    references by question.

    Jemma: Can I get help from the research partners? Some also
    expressed interest in literature review. How can they

    Jeanne: I think we can just ask how they'd like to help.

    David: This is how the research TF is working. We start with
    the questions and then go and find references that look like
    they'd help to answer the question.
    ... We have 22 researchers and some of them have said they'd
    like to help out with the literature review, so it might make
    sense to get them together as a group to work on this to answer
    the questions for that.
    ... We can manage this differently than the other activities,
    since this is much more collaborative.

    Jemma: Jeanne, how do I mark that this is in progress rather
    than done?

    <sloandr> This is an example of how RQTF collects references:

      [18] https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Authentication_references

    Jeanne: Just a line at the top to highlight.

    Jemma: Did you use any citation software?

    David: Kind of a copied version of what someone created with

    Jeanne: Can we build up a file where we can have a copy of
    things behind a paywall?

    David: We'll need to follow the copyright rules and such for
    the given publication.

    Jeanne: Thinking not about publishing it, but more for Shawn's
    project for searching the text of papers in order to come up
    with terms for discovering additional papers. Definitely don't
    want to violate copyright, obviously!

    David: One thing publishers do, without accessing the raw text,
    you can access the references at the end of the paper, so you
    can see what papers reference those.

    Jemma: I'll continue to work on this, and add in the research
    questions. Any other feedback or comments?

    Jeanne: Thank you for doing it, this is a good start!
    ... I also sent an email to the list with an article that has a
    lot of references in it, I'll forward that on.
    ... It has a lot of things in there around why people should
    include accessibility early.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
Received on Sunday, 12 February 2017 18:59:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:41 UTC