Re: Rapid Response Team

At 14:55 13/07/2009, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>Hi WG members,
>
>We are getting a number of emails in on the public comment list 
>asking for clarification on this or that thing regarding WCAG.
>
>These seem to fall into three general categories:
>
>1) people wanting advice on how to design something on their web 
>site (or wanting pages evaluated).
>2) people wondering if some piece of their site conforms.  (Does 
>this pass SC xxxx?)
>3) people asking a question about a concept and if it satisfies a 
>technique or SC
>4) people asking questions about wording in one of the documents.
>
>For #1 and #2 we are generally asking them to talk to professionals 
>in the field.

A had a quick look at some of these questions and many could be 
solved on other mailing lists and forums such as
* WAI Interest Group: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/#mailinglist>
* WebAIM discussion list: <http://www.webaim.org/discussion/>
* Accessify Forum: <http://www.accessifyforum.com/>
* "WAI DE" (in German): <http://webcc.fit.fraunhofer.de/Mailinglist.html>
* AccessTech-FR (in French): <http://www.netaccessible.com/accesstech/>
* Sidar (in Spanish): <http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/accesoweb/>
* ict-dfa-nl (in Dutch): <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/dfa-ict-nl/>
There are probably many other lists and forums.
Perhaps we should add a note that certain types of questions can be 
addressed elsewhere to the page at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/>.

Best regards,

Christophe


>But
>  -  for questions that uncover places where we need to be clearer 
> in the wording in our documents - or add wording
>
>  - And for new techniques or approaches that may meet our SC but we 
> do not have documented
>
>We want to be able to respond as we can and add to our documentation.
>
>Sometimes we need to take something to the group and discuss.  But 
>often we know the answer even if it isn't clear in our documentation.
>
>For this latter group - we would like to turn the questions around 
>sooner than putting them through the whole group review process (log 
>them in, have them wait til turn comes up, prepare response, put on 
>schedule for discussion at WG meeting etc.)
>
>The idea is to have a Rapid Response Team  that would pre-screen the 
>items coming in.  Separate out the Type #1 and #2 and send a note 
>referring them off to someplace (that can handle their questions on 
>a more timely basis).
>
>Then id which #3 or #4 items are straightforward enough that an 
>answer can be just drafted and sent back to the person - and also 
>either added in the Understanding doc or listed in a CaseBook (a 
>kind of technical FAQ).    The WG can review these later to catch 
>any errors but they can be done as a block.
>
>The #3 and #4 items needed WG review would be logged in, a note sent 
>to the commenter telling them they are queued up and will be 
>answered in turn,  and then the comment go through the longer process.
>
>
>
>So now we need volunteers for the Rapid Response Team.   (if we get 
>enough volunteers we will rotate members to spread the load)
>
>remember this team will just    1) sort   2) answer quick easy ones 
>and 3) pass the rest on for logging or sending of referral letters.
>
>thanks
>
>
>Gregg
>-----------------------
>Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>Director Trace R&D Center
>Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
>and Biomedical Engineering
>University of Wisconsin-Madison


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
"Better products and services through end-user empowerment" 
http://www.usem-net.eu/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.

Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 17:07:12 UTC