- From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:14:40 +0000
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- CC: RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>, Klaus Miesenberger <Klaus.Miesenberger@jku.at>, Andrea Petz <Andrea.Petz@jku.at>, Kerstin Matausch <Kerstin.Matausch@ki-i.at>
Hi Shadi, let me take these in order: 1) looks good. 2) I (and most of the group - all except Kerstin) want the normal system / I support this - if we have to limit attendees then we have no choice. 3) I think this is an author issue, Klaus can we send the ones with coding errors back - this is how it's normally done at conferences as authors are the stakeholders with more invested than anyone else and so are more likely to do the work - and it is the editors responsibility to get them changed - Klaus this is how it works at ICCHP right? 4) I think the chairs seem to have everything in hand and we have meeting next week only for these comments too. 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 21/11/12 08:02, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: > Dear Group and E2R symposium co-chairs, > > In lieu of this week's meeting I'd like to get your input via > mail. > > #1. Please review the updated symposium page and let us know any > thoughts you may have -- the symposium co-chairs are working on > the agenda section but otherwise it should be ready: - > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2012/easy-to-read/> > > > #2. Please share your thoughts on teleconferencing system -- The > setup for TC4R worked quite well but it is limited to ~50 > participants (we had 40+ participants). There are benefits to allow > more participants but also drawbacks (more noise and chatter, less > focused discussion, more overhead to manage, ...), most > importantly, the other system we tried didn't have the same level > of quality -- we need to decide! > > > #3. Some of the listed papers have character-encoding bugs that > crept in during the QA process (how ironic!) -- any volunteers to > help clean up the HTML in some of these papers? > > > #4. Please share any other thoughts about potential questions to > raise, discussion to have, or other suggestions you may have for > the co-chairs to consider for the symposium -- they are preparing > now. > > Thanks, Shadi >
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 08:15:06 UTC