[16:01:49] just a reminder - the research showcase will start in 30 minutes. join us via the live-stream on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJDsKPsz64o [16:31:24] live! [16:32:39] feel free to ask questions here and I'll do my best to relay them on to the speakers during Q&A. [17:34:12] I find the 'accessibility' gap concept interesting, because it's something that is an intuitive problem — sometimes I read articles that I want to understand, but can't because the writing is unecessarily dense... [17:34:12] But it also seems to me like automated standard tools like reading ease scores might be completely inappropriate for measuring that gap, because the 'right' level for any given topic will vary widely. [17:34:12] Is this an area where your team thinks it might be possible to usefully measure, and if so, how? [17:36:02] got it ragesoss [17:36:34] mgerlach: ^^ [17:36:35] good prez .. i was partially multi-tasking so couldn't fully focus, but got the gist of it. looks interesting and i'll try to read more this week. [17:37:04] nice framing in terms of the reader, contirbutor and content gaps [17:39:42] subbu: thanks. if you see things need to be improved, please give us feedback: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Knowledge_Gaps_Index/Taxonomy#Feedback_collection_September_2020 [17:40:29] will do. [17:40:37] thanks isaacj! [17:43:33] happily -- thanks for the question! if you have more thoughts on this, I'd be quite happy to hear. the other piece i should have mentioned is that we include things like structured data / multimedia in part to help address this "even if the reading ease isn't high, are there alternative ways of engaging with the content?" because that might also be acceptable [17:45:55] thanks for joining.