See also: IRC log
<Andrew> hi pasquale
<pasquale> my voice is like Godzilla's voice
<Andrew> please explain thye Godzilla connection? ah - you have an infection?
<pasquale> a bad one
<Andrew> I'm glad this is a teleconference then ;-)
<pasquale> i think i'll be mute all the time ;-))
The problem with mute is you forget and wonder why nobody can hear you.
<Andrew> but u must contribute to the discussion :-) - maybe in irc.
<pasquale> hi wayne
I am testing a very interesting product called Web Adapt from IBM
<pasquale> i'm just reading about it at http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/developer/web/
It has some navigation problems, but the enlargement and contorl over spacing is great.
<rcastaldo> Hi folks :-)
<pasquale> ciao roberto
<rcastaldo> ciao Pasquale
<Andrew> hi roberto
<rcastaldo> HI Andrew
Outreach Update : noted Justin's update
Judy: UN Convention on Rights of
Disaled; discussed typical issues or guidelines and
... Good reaction. Spoke with about 40 people; Involved with drafting policy on accessile technology.
Topic 2: Selecting Evaluation Tools
<Harvey> Yuri Rubinsky died 10 years ago -- a initiator and motivator for accessibility, and W3C.
Thank you Harvey.
Shadi: (overview) Changed focus
from list of existing tools and categories; how they fit
... This did not fit. New approach fron Eval Document. What are the processes and how can the tools assist the process.
Zakim mute me
Judy: Look first at comments y
... The word crawling does not explain the traversal.
Shadi: agreed to place "semi automated Web Accessility" comments in the changelog.
<Andrew> Roberto/Pasquale - do you have a term instaed of crawling or spidering?
<rcastaldo> crossing, covering
Sustituting, crossing, covering, nagigating, ... please type your suggestions.
Judy: How well does the tool examine the entire site?
<Andrew> waht about 'site coverage' as the front term?
Andrew: Site Coverage.
Judy: Does the tool cover the entire site automatically?
Third question: Manual evaluation tools ... difficulty with the sentence.
Pasquale: This is important content
<Andrew> shawn - your wordsmithing is needed
Shadi: Keep the content, but clarify content.
Justins Comments: Follow the same pattern in 3 that others sections take.
Pasquale: There may be value with basing section 3 on a question.
Andrew: Should we change the
section title so as not to conflict with other documents.
... "other eval techniques"
Shadi: Are Section 3 the true
manual evaluation, while the ones marked as manual are more
... Semi-automated; wizzard interfaces; visual feedback and manual tools.
Judy: Does section 3 belong in the document. Does this address the main problem of selecting evaluation tools.
Justin: These are not just techniques but they tools. Software that can be used for evaluation and review.
Shadi: Although this is manual evaluation. These tools contriute to evaluation.
Justin: Environmental Emulation Tools
Sailesh: A tool is narrower than anything that evaluates. It involves tools that helps specifically with evaluation?
Judy: This list is important. How much of this do we want in "Selecting" documents. Should try to focus on selecting not how to do evaluation with other tools. Should we take out doing this manually?
Sailish: We should stick to the tools focus: Level of automation should be one factor.
Doyle: Agrees; Rather that clasifying tools as manual; semi-automatic ... so an automation as a scale would help.
Shadi: For time some processes cannot be evaluated. In those cases what tools will help. there should be a pointer to types of evaluators.
Andrew: Just a scale will not work. Question may not such as coverage; how many checkpoints will be identified (automated) vs how many are identified (manual or semi-automatic).
Judy: Can we draw a clear line. The features are so varied.
[Judy]: Are they realy discrete or is there a continueum.
Shadi: There are no sharp lines, but there are several distinct differences. Are they stable?
Judy: Are the categories useful? Are there features or questions.
<Justin> with wizard feedback
<Justin> with icons
Shadi: Automated, Wizard interfaces, Visual Feedback, Manual
Are there truly different questions relating to the categories that justify explaining clasification?
Judy: Aren't these selections of features?
Shadi: The subcategory of user
interface did not give the effect we wanted. I think they are
main factors for selecting tools.
... Is there an effective way to describe these.
... The feature apporach with user interface did not work.
Judy: How necessary does this categorization seem?
Roberto: Categories will help, but are they necessary. Create new categores (more simple). There is a risk of confusing.
Judy: Perhaps a brief introduction?
I am confused about this focus of this discussion?
Judy: When we have the categories clearer in the database then we can link
Shadi: This document should come first; Then chang the other document.
Judy: Once we are clear about our categories here we can move them to the supporting document.
Sailesh: Has reservations on categorization. Some requier manual intervention. Tools are an aid, some can be done in an automated, some are manual...
Judy: We need to be clear about how evaulation tools can help the process of evaluation in the introduction?
Shadi: We can note that tools can automate, but I don't want to overstate that.
Judy: We are not going near the
Myth of total automation, but we need to state the case of why
we are talking about these tools.
... We should talk about the benifits, but caution about what tools can and cannot do. Be carefull how you use these tools, what they can and cannot do.
Chamane: This is important to note. They all have limitations.
<pasquale> i disagree
An evaluation tool can check a webpage against checkpoints and give determination of conformance.
Andrew: Disagrees, cannot not all points can be determined automatically.
Sailesh: Something that helps the user but leaves it to the user does not qualify.
Judy: Other reactions.
Pasquale: Disagrees. Some checkpoints can be automatic; Some cannot.
<shawn> yes, i'm here
Topic 3: Charter
<shawn> welcome :-)
<shawn> meeting: EOWG
<shawn> chair: Judy
<shawn> scribe: wayne
<shawn> charter: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/charter4.html
<shawn> participation: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/participation.html
Sign up is necessary for intellectual property reasons.
Judy: We all must sign up again to clarify these issues.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to note that if you already have a W3C login account (e.g., that you used to register for the TP), you do not need to get another one
<rcastaldo> Bye all
Shawn are you still here?
<shawn> yes, wayne
<pasquale> hi all, just a little news: in Naples it's snowing ;-)
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.109 of Date: 2005/01/21 04:36:25 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Scribes: wayne ScribeNicks: wayne WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: Andrew, Shadi, Wayne, Doyle_Saylor, Bingham, Judy, Pasquale_Popolizio, Roberto, Sailesh_Panchang, Charmane, Justin, Shawn Present: Andrew Shadi Wayne Doyle_Saylor Bingham Judy Pasquale_Popolizio Roberto Sailesh_Panchang Charmane Justin Shawn WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Sylvie, Helle, Alan, Blossom, Libby, Carol) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ include, Henk, &, possibly, Shawn Regrets: include Henk & possibly Shawn Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2005JanMar/0058.html Got date from IRC log name: 28 Jan 2005 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]