- From: Christos Kouroupetroglou <chris.kourou@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:54:27 +0200
- To: SIMON HARPER <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Klaus Miesenberger <Klaus.Miesenberger@jku.at>, Annika Nietzio <an@ftb-volmarstein.de>, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPpNJJ8KBrQSyqE=-97Pgavf8Vy68adKQg7vQfMapUNROeeMLQ@mail.gmail.com>
OK for me too 2012/11/5 Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk> > Hi Klaus, > > I support your proposal - we've not done it like this before, it will be > interesting to see the result, and finally you as chair and editors for > this should have a degree of autonomy to choose what you feel is best. > > Cheers > > 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/ > > University of Manchester (UK) > Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group > http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk > > On 05/11/12 10:46, Klaus Miesenberger wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I agree that 14 papers is too much for 2 hours and also I agree that a > second date is difficult. > > > > The issues why we were considering to accept 14 papers - besides seeing > good value in them - was, that we > > GO AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL PAPER PRESENTATIONS. > > > > We do NOT intend that each author presents its paper - this would ask > for going down to 8 - 10 papers for 2 hours or even less. > > > > I thaught there is agreement that we run a panel discussion based on the > questions we prepare and questions from the audience which has read all > papers in advance. In this sense we thaught it seems to be manageable to > have three panel discussions on the defined topics. > > > > What I do need NOW is a decision on the number of papers to accept: a) > 14 (as proposed) or b) 11 (as outlined as an option) or c) even less (8). > > > > The result of the review for me gives a clear preference to accept 14 > papers as they do not overlap and provide good materials for a rich > publicatioin in particular regarding tools for e2r. But this only makes > sense when we do not base the symposium on paper presentations. > > > > The style of questions etc we can discuss in one of our telcos but I > have to send out notifications today that we do not loose credit. > > > > So could I ask if you object against > > - accepting 14 contributions > > - running 3 panel discussions without paper presentations > > > > Many thanks > > 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/ > > Tel: +43-732-2468-3751 Fax: ...-23751 > > 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 > > eAccess+ The eAccessibility newtork: www.eaccessplus.eu > > Austrian Computer Society, OCG: www.ocg.at/ > >>>> Annika Nietzio <an@ftb-volmarstein.de> 05.11.2012 08:16 >>> > > Hi all, > > > > I agree with Christos that 14 papers in 2 hours is a tight schedule. It > > is also a question of how good the audience will be able to follow the > > presentation and discussion. A presenter who has only little time might > > be tempted to speak faster and maybe even read out prepared written > > notes. That happened at the Web metrics symposium. It was really hard to > > follow. > > > > If we decide to allocate more time, I'd prefer one symposium with 3 hrs > > instead of two telecons. It will be difficult to find a date in > > December. Moreover, some opportunities for finding connections and > > cross-references between the panel are lost. > > > > Regarding the additional preparation by the authors: I agree that we > > shouldn't ask them to prepare more writing. I like the two options: Ask > > the authors to prepare questions about other paper. And send out a set > > of questions to all authors in the panel (without specifying who gets to > > answer which question). > > > > By the way, how will the audience ask their questions? I expect that > > written questions (via email, chat, twitter) will we much more efficient > > than oral questions. Not only because the technical (sound / mic) > > problems are avoided but also because chairs can select the most > > interesting questions. > > > > Kind regards > > Annika > > > > > > On 11/03/2012 07:27 PM, Christos Kouroupetroglou wrote: > >> 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 <mailto: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 > >> <mailto:klaus.miesenberger@jku.at > >, > >> http://www.integriert- > studieren.jku.at/ > >> < > http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at/> > >> Tel: +43-732-2468-9232<tel:%2B43-732-2468-9232> > >> 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> > >> <http://www.aaate.net> > >> eAccess+ The eAccessibility > newtork: > >> www.eaccessplus.eu < > http://www.eaccessplus.eu> > >> <http://www.eaccessplus.eu> > >> Austrian Computer Society, OCG: > www.ocg.at/ > >> <http://www.ocg.at/> < > http://www.ocg.at/> > >> > >> > >> > >> Simon > Harper > >> < > simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk > >> <mailto: > 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> > >> <mailto: > klaus.miesenberger@ jku.at > >> <mailto: > klaus.miesenberger@jku.at>>, > >> > >> http://www.integriert- > studieren.jku.at/ > >> < > http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at/> > >> > >> > >> Tel: +43-732-2468-3751<tel:%2B43-732-2468-3751> > >> 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> > >> <http://www.aaate.net/> > >> eAccess+ The > eAccessibility newtork: > >> www.eaccessplus.eu < > http://www.eaccessplus.eu> > >> < > http://www.eaccessplus.eu/> > >> Austrian Computer > Society, OCG: www.ocg.at/ > >> <http://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) > >> > >> > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 22:54:58 UTC