Secondly, I want to outline what I’ll be doing with the results. I’m currently writing my thoughts into something longer and slightly more formal. A version of this report will be internal to eAccess+ to help inform what we do next, but I’ll also share this publicly – via this blog – my reflections on the discussion, what I think should happen next and, if possible, update you on what eAccess+ commits to doing.

Thanks again!

While I used CSUN as the topic of the post, the main objective was to talk about the influence an external definition of ‘impact’ (i.e. not my own opinion) has on the conference attendance plans of academic researchers, rather than specifically critiquing CSUN’s reviewing structure.

Perhaps I should clarify that when I said “much less thorough” I only meant the criteria by which I was asked to review each submission, not the paper selection process after reviewers’ comments were received (about which I can’t comment as I wasn’t involved in that stage).

I’ll be be happy to offer CSUN my views on the reviewing process, but I’ll say again that I’m absolutely not on a crusade to change the conference – just curious to see how it could earn the impact (from a UK academic research perspective) it seems to deserve as an influential gathering of people in the accessibility/AT field.

You “found the review system [at CSUN] much less thorough than for other conferences I’ve reviewed for, that also seek to attract good accessibility and inclusive design research.” Yet, your post did not compare or contrast CSUN’s system for paper acceptance with some of the other conferences with which you had experience. What specifically should the CSUN organizers do differently to make the paper acceptance system much more rigorous and competetive? Also, it is a conference that industry and the broader disability community attends. How might innovation and unconventional ideas fare in an effort to elevate the quality of presentations? New ideas may threaten certain interests. The biggest example of this in recent years was the finding that coconut oil can reverse the effects or stop the progression of Altzheimer’s disease in some persons. The doctor who would present this finding had her accepted paper yanked a week before an Altzheimer’s disease conference.

Thanks for the comment. I guess I was always open to the accusation that if I want to attend, I should pay my own way So if that’s how you read this post, then fair enough.

However, two points:

1. This is absolutely not a cry about my employer’s decision, whom I would never expect to pay for my trip. Funding for the research projects I work on comes with a travel budget – it’s a question of how that budget is spent. And spending tends to be governed by how the research funding system measures impact, so choice of conference is driven by the credit we get for having a paper accepted. CSUN compares poorly with other conferences in terms of research impact, but the reason for writing the post was to ask whether that is justified.

2. I did not say that there would be mediocre presentations at CSUN 2011, and not being there in person, it’s impossible for me to judge whether or not there will be. As a reviewer, it would also be unprofessional and unethical of me to tell you the details of any papers I didn’t rate highly but have still been accepted. My point concerned the rigour of the reviewing system.

Rather than pose as a middle-class complainer, consider offering solutions to the organizers if you want change. Deliver not a complaint but a proposed solution. Realize of course that Northridge is not a top-tier academic institution. If you are expecting an experience at the level of UC Berkeley, University of Illinois at Urbana or MIT, it likely won’t happen from something emanating from Northridge.

Also, if you believe the organizers let a number of mediocre people to present inconsequential topics, then name names and specify presentations. A complaint without clear examples is somewhat meaningless. Who should not be at this year’s CSUN and why?

It all seems to boil down to the fact that the CSUN conference isn’t worth spending your own money to attend. If you can’t go using other people’s money, then you won’t go. Fair enough. It is silly though to cry about your employer’s decision publicly unless you have specific suggestions to change the conference that would enable your employer to pull out the checkbook.

My main objection to a11y (along with its partners, i18n and l10n) is that it’s a numeronym — a puzzle to be solved as a sort of initiation rite for the cult of the elite Web workers.

Yes, they save space. But they also confuse. And if we’re going to concede that it’s acceptable to confuse people to save space, why not use the hexadecimal counting system to really save space?

Instead of #a11y, write #aby.

Instead of #l10n, write #lan.

Instead of #i18n, write #i12n. (OK, so we don’t save any space there, but, as they say, two out of three ain’t bad.)

#AxS might never catch on. But even when people forget to capitalize its “A” and “S,” it looks and sounds more like part of what we’re talking about.

I myself have lapsed back into generally using #a11y. But I really regret that the spirit of #i9y* wasn’t a stronger factor the group — whoever it was — that decided that A-one-one-Y was the way to go.

Cheers!
Cliff

* That’s “inclusivity,” which is said to be an important construct of our field.