Re: Antw: Re: e2r: selection of papers and format of symposium

Hi all,

Summing up what the main pints...
-We don't want to split in 2 days... (it might be unfair for some people)
-We don't want to ask them to write more ... apart from having them write
this will also mean that the audience should read more beforehand in order
to be on track. Having 14 papers it's already enough material having
additional questions might lead to an audience not able to follow and maybe
asking questions already answered in written.
-Presenters should have enough time to discuss their papers... but the
audience should not get tired.

Doing my math I see that having a slot of 2 hours would mean each presenter
would have about 8 minutes (115/14 = 8,2) but schedule must be really
strict. Given the time for asking questions too... this leaves about 7
minues for each presenter. If I was a presenter I would feel really pressed
for time.

Assuming we have 3 hours (180 minutes)... and two 5min breaks in between
panels we are left with 165 minutes which is about 12mins for each
presenter (165/14 = 11,78). Given also the time for asking questions, this
leaves a bit more that 10 minutes for each presenter. This feels more
comfortable and less stressful both for presenters and chairs. And it also
gives enough time for breaks in between panels to clear our minds.

Moreover, having also the starting and ending session taking about 40
minutes and middle one being bigger (slightly over an hour) is also easier
for audience to follow. It's like have a proper 3 course meal! Starter,
main course and dessert. And that's exactly the actual meaning of a
symposio in greek (a rich and delicious meal accompanied by discussions and
spirits which lead to even more lively discussions).

So, in my opinion the best solution would be a 3 hours symposio with 3
panels (as Klaus described them) and short 5 min breaks in between. In that
case... I would also consider the option of sending the presenters a
request to prepare some questions for other presenters (within a panel) in
case the chairs run out of ideas or the audience isn't that "brave".

Regards,
Christos.


2012/11/3 Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>

> Hi Yeliz,
>
> We discussed that on the last call and there was concern that authors may
> get frustrated about being required to write yet more material, in
> particular where such a requirement was not made clear from the start.
>
> Best,
>   Shadi
>
>
>
> On 2.11.2012 21:21, Yeliz Yesilada wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> What about sending the prepared questions to all authors before the panel
>> and asking them to write their answers back to the organisers. These could
>> then be published before the symposium to all attendees. These answers can
>> then be published as part of the note. The symposium will then have three
>> panels (actual panels) as specified below:
>>
>> Panel A: Guidelines (25 min)
>>   - each author can take turn and highlight the main challenge that they
>> address with their work.
>>   - open questions
>> Panel B: Tools (60 min)
>> - each author can take turn and highlight the main challenge that they
>> address with their work.
>>   - open questions
>> Panel C: Workflow, Process, Services (30 min)
>> - each author can take turn and highlight the main challenge that they
>> address with their work.
>> - open questions
>>
>> I think these discussion sessions will be more productive. If some of the
>> authors will not participate in the discussions and some are very
>> talkative, it will then be the chairs who will monitor these and will make
>> sure that each author in each session will have time to speak.
>>
>> I think having a longer session will not work. It is very difficult to
>> follow an online symposium after sometime. It can get tiring and I think
>> having two symposium will mean that the first one might be more popular and
>> will not be fair to the authors who will present their paper in the second
>> symposium. However, with the proposed format above, each author will have
>> chance to speak (not present their work but mainly summarise the
>> challenge[1] they address) and have good discussion around each theme.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yeliz.
>>
>> [1] Have you seen Tiny Transactions on Computer Science (TinyToCS) <
>> http://tinytocs.org/>? This is a similar idea...You can ask authors that
>> if they were asked to twit about their paper, how would they twit about the
>> challenge they address in their paper? Short and concise :))
>>
>> On 2 Nov 2012, at 16:19, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Simon, Klaus,
>>>
>>> One of the concerns of doing 2 teleconferences is that (a) the new
>>> teleconference time was never pre-announced and may be disadvantaging to
>>> the papers being discussed during that teleconference, (b) we have the TC4R
>>> symposium just two weeks before, and, (c) it is difficult to get people
>>> attend another teleconference shortly before Christmas.
>>>
>>> I think we need to either reduce the accepted paper or allocate more
>>> time for the teleconference in a format that does not disadvantage any of
>>> the papers (like doing a "group 1" and a "group 2" format).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>   Shadi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2.11.2012 12:16, Simon Harper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Klaus,
>>>>
>>>> we did panel sessions with questions for the Mobile - but it was still
>>>> took ages...
>>>>
>>>> Si.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster
>>>> response please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.
>>>>
>>>> =======================
>>>> Simon Harper
>>>> http://simon.harper.name/**about/card/<http://simon.harper.name/about/card/>
>>>>
>>>> University of Manchester (UK)
>>>> Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
>>>> http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
>>>>
>>>> On 02/11/2012 11:04, Klaus Miesenberger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to hear from you Simon - hope you are well back!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is also my concern. My understanding was that we do not run a
>>>>> traditional presentation of papers but a discussion with the panel of
>>>>> authors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Participant har read the papers and we do not ask for presentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we ask for presentaitons, I would also opt for 2 symposia (e.g. a
>>>>> week inbetween.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the last telco my understanding was that we should go away from
>>>>> presenting papers but making it more disussion based.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> a.Univ.Prof.Dr. Klaus Miesenberger
>>>>> University of Linz, Institut Integriert Studieren
>>>>> Altenbergerstrasse 69, A-4040 Linz
>>>>> klaus.miesenberger@jku.at, http://www.integriert-**studieren.jku.at/<http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at/>
>>>>> Tel: +43-732-2468-9232 Fax: ...-9322
>>>>>
>>>>> International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special
>>>>> Needs, ICCHP: http://www.icchp.org
>>>>> International Camps on Computers&Communication, ICC:
>>>>> http://www.icc-camp.info/
>>>>> Association for the Advancement for Assistive Technology in Europe,
>>>>> AAATE: www.aaate.net <http://www.aaate.net>
>>>>> eAccess+ The eAccessibility newtork: www.eaccessplus.eu
>>>>> <http://www.eaccessplus.eu>
>>>>> Austrian Computer Society, OCG: www.ocg.at/ <http://www.ocg.at/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk**> 2.11.2012 11:13 AM >>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Klaus,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is really great news - I agree wrt 1 and 2  - my worry is that we
>>>>> won't be able to run through all papers in the time we have available.
>>>>> I
>>>>> wonder if it is worth having 2 symposiums and 1 note?
>>>>>
>>>>> Si.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster
>>>>> response please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================
>>>>> Simon Harper
>>>>> http://simon.harper.name/**about/card/<http://simon.harper.name/about/card/>
>>>>>
>>>>> University of Manchester (UK)
>>>>> Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
>>>>> http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/11/2012 08:50, Klaus Miesenberger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> unfortunatly Sandy blew away our telco this week  - I do hope that
>>>>>> Simon and others are not affected too much by this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following our timeline we have to notify submitters about acceptance
>>>>>> or decline of papers for the symposium - that's what I wanted to
>>>>>> discuss on Wednesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a proposal, following a chair meeting we did in Linz, for both
>>>>>> acceptance and symposium structure (numbers refer to the list
>>>>>> attached)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) Acceptance our of 17 submissions
>>>>>> 1) Clear accept for 11 papers: 8, 11, 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 17, 4, 16, 10
>>>>>> 2) Tend to accept for 3 papers: 6, 5, 15
>>>>>> 3) Not accept for 3 papers: 1, 7, 14
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our suggestion is to accept 1) and 2) due to the following reasons:
>>>>>> a) They all provide very valuable information on a new topic; pushing
>>>>>> this field as a new research area merits to include a broad
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>> b) It is hard to evaluate on basis of short abstracts. The difference
>>>>>> in quality is not that high.
>>>>>> c) And most important: Selecting these  14 papers would support a fine
>>>>>> structuring of the symposium:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B) Thematic Grouping of 14 papers:
>>>>>> 1) Guidelines and WCAG update: 4,9,10
>>>>>> 2) Tools: 2,(5), (6), 12, 13, (15), 17
>>>>>> 3) Workflow, Process, Services: 3, 8, 11, 16
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C) Programme
>>>>>> INTRODUCTION (5 min)
>>>>>> Panel A: Guidelines (25 min)
>>>>>>     - prepared questions to all panelists (15)
>>>>>>     - open questions (10)
>>>>>> Panel B: Tools (60 min)
>>>>>>     - prepared question to all panelists (40)
>>>>>>     - open questions (20)
>>>>>> Panel C: Workflow, Process, Services (30 min)
>>>>>>     - prepared questions to all panelists (20)
>>>>>>     - open questions (10)
>>>>>> Follow up discussion for interested people
>>>>>> Before sending out notifications I wanted to ask if the group could
>>>>>> basically agree to this strucutre. I will inform all contributors that
>>>>>> the notification will be delayed till Monday. Therefore I would need
>>>>>> feedback till Monday noon next week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks
>>>>>> Klaus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a.Univ.Prof.Dr. Klaus Miesenberger
>>>>>> University of Linz, Institut Integriert Studieren
>>>>>> Altenbergerstrasse 69, A-4040 Linz
>>>>>> klaus.miesenberger@jku.at
>>>>>> <mailto:klaus.miesenberger@**jku.at <klaus.miesenberger@jku.at>>,
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.integriert-**studieren.jku.at/<http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at/>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: +43-732-2468-3751 Fax: ...-23751
>>>>>> International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special
>>>>>> Needs, ICCHP: http://www.icchp.org <http://www.icchp.org/>
>>>>>> International Camps on Computers&Communication, ICC:
>>>>>> http://www.icc-camp.info/
>>>>>> Association for the Advancement for Assistive Technology in Europe,
>>>>>> AAATE: www.aaate.net <http://www.aaate.net/>
>>>>>> eAccess+ The eAccessibility newtork: www.eaccessplus.eu
>>>>>> <http://www.eaccessplus.eu/>
>>>>>> Austrian Computer Society, OCG: www.ocg.at/ <http://www.ocg.at/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/**shadi/<http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/>
>>> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
>>> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
>>> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/**shadi/<http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/>
> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>
>