[Accessforall] When is the next 24751 call ?

Andy Heath andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
Tue Jul 2 04:34:20 EDT 2013


If you still think we need substantial discussion (personally I'd like 
to see a lot more drafting of details and emailed comments on the drafts 
than not-so-focussed oral discussion) then I suggest you might do a 
doodle or whenisgood with availability for a regular general week time 
not a specific one.  I filled it in for the specific week requested last 
time and it happened to be a week when I had a number of calls and 
meetings I don't usually have - my availability is much greater usually 
- I have no idea how much my constraints were a factor.  Then if someone 
can't make it some particular week, well that's the way it rolls in 
groups that are not very small.

There are two things I don't understand about the plans here ...

1. What is the purpose of doing all this quite academic discussion among 
editors outside of SC36 context - when we expose work to the wider 
audience in SC36 its going to be disassembled, dissected, discussed, 
re-worked, balloted, changed and so on - there is no guarantee that 
national bodies other than the ones that are actively involved as 
editors will accept the work without change.

2. My understanding of the process was that the standard would be 
constructed around practices that had been implemented and tested inside 
the GPII framework (whatever that is) and that one project testing ideas 
here was C4ALL.  If we're all sitting around debating what are the 
correct ideas that should go into the standard then what was C4ALL for ? 
  Like some others I have given of my time and expertise freely to these 
meetings over a substantial period and I'm not sure why because it 
appears to me that we are discussing ideas we had before C4ALL anyway ? 
Can someone explain to me how C4ALL experience goes forward into this 
debate when we are discussing the foundations that we were led to 
believe that project was figuring out how to do and testing ?

> I think I'd like a clear indication of what is to be published when as a
> start to the two Parts of 24751, and a clear agenda for the meetings. I
> like to attend the meetings because otherwise things get fragmented and
> I get confused! I will agree to terrible times for the meeting in order
> to have just one meeting - does that help??
> On my side, I am working hard to have a draft of Part 3 ready at least
> for discussion at the Moscow meeting. This means having it published
> (within ISO) a few weeks before the meeting. I assume this is the case
> for Parts 1 and 2 as well?
> Liddy
> On 01/07/2013, at 11:32 PM, Treviranus, Jutta (Academic) wrote:
>> The only times that had 2 or less people that could not make it were
>> 11am EDT/ on Wednesday and 10am or 11am on Thursday. The people
>> affected are Liddy and Madeleine on Thursday and Liddy and Gottfried
>> on Wednesday.
>> My proposal is to hold two  1 hour meetings at:
>> Wednesday at 11am EDT, 5pm CET, 1am Liddy time, 4pm Andy time, 10am
>> Gregg time, and
>> Friday at 8am EDT, 1pm CET, 10pm Liddy time, 7am Gregg time, noon Andy
>> time.
>> Does anyone have a better suggestion?
>> thanks
>> Jutta
>> Jutta Treviranus
>> Professor and Director
>> Inclusive Design Research Centre and Inclusive Design Institute
>> OCAD University
>> On 2013-07-01, at 8:43 AM, Liddy Nevile <liddy at sunriseresearch.org>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm confused too?????
>>> Liddy
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:58 PM, Andy Heath wrote:
>>>> Just a tad confused, maybe I missed some mails ?
>>>> andy
>>>> andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
>>>> --
>>>> __________________
>>>> Andy Heath
>>>> http://axelafa.com

andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
Andy Heath

More information about the Accessforall mailing list