- 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:
https://www.w3.org/2017/02/10-silver-minutes.html
Text of Minutes:
[1]W3C
[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
Attendees
Present
Shawn, Jan, David, MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah
Regrets
Chair
jeanne, shawn
Scribe
Lauriat
Contents
* [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
yet.
... 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.
<sloandr>
[9]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bsqv595CnSzmUa2Tv53d
uudNvn_ExTW6xGx-6_ECM7c/edit#gid=0
[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
researchers.
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
particular.
<jeanne>
[10]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2017Feb/
0011.html
[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
[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
[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,
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.
<jeanne>
[13]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Research_
Projects#Proposed_Research_Questions
[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.
<sloandr>
[14]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f-7FUfhht8TpOdRKdYY
pXOt2hxZ6p7oXDOyMWZMLQL0/edit#gid=0
[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
Japan
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.
<SarahHorton>
[15]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bsqv595CnSzmUa2Tv53
duudNvn_ExTW6xGx-6_ECM7c/edit#gid=0
[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.
<jemma_>
[16]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f-7FUfhht8TpOdRKdYY
pXOt2hxZ6p7oXDOyMWZMLQL0/edit#gid=0
[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
<jemma_>
[17]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Literatur
e_Review
[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
page?
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
contribute?
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/w
iki/Authentication_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
EndNote.
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