ERT WG

Vote on Requirements Document

saz: hopes everybody read requirements doc
... next step - vote on the call (or via email) about publishing as 1st WD
... 2 or 3 iterations
... then WD note
... questions or comments?
... all clear

<niq> +1

saz: please vote now on IRC

<shadi> saz: yes

<ChrisR> yes to EARL requirements

jk: yes

<CarlosI> yes

<Sandor> sh: yes

Resolution on Dropping earl:confidence Property

saz: drop confidence or keep as placeholder?
... changes will be published in new WD (before summer break?)

<Zakim> niq, you wanted to say keep confidence. Having a confidence in test-description is not mutually exclusive

niq: confidence should be kept

saz: kept as is (high medium low)?
... or have different values? integer? float values?

niq: should be open to different values

saz: would be less interoparablility
... no definition for high, medium, low
... when to use a value for each test

cr: should be optional

saz: keep values, but property optional?

cr: leave open, allow to use more values

<JibberJim> I'm happy with open

jk: also high, medium, low are not really interoperable

saz: people use them, but the meaning could be different

<niq> High: this evaluation believes the assertion. Medium: we are uncertain. Low: I'm just putting this in for completeness, but you can probably ignore it

jk: imergo only uses error (100% sure) or warning(<100% sure)

saz: use cannotTell?

<Zakim> niq, you wanted to disagree with jk. confidences are properties of warning

nk: need confidence for which warning you need to worry about

<niq> no, that would be low where there's overlap

jk: cannotTell vs fail/pass with medium confidence

saz: confidence is not about warning; developers should be more strikt

<Zakim> niq, you wanted to say fail with low confidence =~ pass with low confidence =~ can't tell

nk: 'pass' is what we believe, but we are not sure (-> low confidence)
... sometimes it's in the middle

saz: sub-classes of cannotTell?
... cmn will read minutes and comment

nk: it's not about validity
... each of properties has its own purpose
... pass or fail with confidence to aggregate test

cr: proper alt attribute: confidence is relevant

saz: there is pass or fail (sure!)
... grey zone in between
... people used pass/fail with confidence together to descibe grey zone

nk: extend validity will look clumsy

<niq> "has no alt" <-- clear fail

<niq> alt="bullet" <-- less certain fail

why not cannotTell?

nk: should not be merged with validity

cr: low confidence -> needs a look by testing person

saz: we should also use IRC

and phone

and mailing list

<niq> yep

saz: agreement not to drop confidence
... when to use high, medium, low?

clear definition?

saz: leave that up to developer?

<niq> Suggest guidelines, something like - High: this evaluation believes the assertion. Medium: we are uncertain. Low: I'm just putting this in for completeness, but you can probably ignore it

saz: values from developer's own namespace

cr: ack to nk

saz: not clear enough

cr: should be optional

<CarlosI> I agree

jk: cannot be optional - one tool says fail with low confidence - another tool reads report and only says 'fail'

nk: that's why we need confidence

saz: nk, could you write a Note about confidence when testing against WCAG?

nk: not sure if have enough time

saz: others can contribute to this
... publish end of June/beginning of July

<shadi> ACTION: Nick will prepare a draft proposal for the usage of high - medium - low confidence values in the context of WCAG and bring back to the group later in June for commenting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/07-er-minutes.html#action01]

Check-in on Possible Face-to-Face Meeting Dates

cr: September will not be good
... prefers later

jk: beginning of october is ok

saz: f2f in first half of october
... thanks