See also: IRC log
Shadi: refer <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2005/tools-tf>
and <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Nov/0010>
... interface is not our task - that is the role of EOWG
Sahdi: our role is to port the information from the static pages to the database
Shadi: phase 1 - is to port the information
... phase 2 (optional) is to expand the list with additional tools that might
be missing
... we are looking at a 1 month spurt of activity - finish by Christmas
Steve: what if we haven't finished?
Shadi: we will try and finish by then, but the list will remain open for ongoing work as required
Carlos: what if tool developers do not respond?
Shadi: I'm hoping they will respond - if not we will have to judge on a case-by-case basis
Steve: why can't we publish the public info (from the current list or from their site) even if they don't say "yes"
Shadi: we may misrepresent them
... mostly it is straight forward
Discussion: we don't relay need them permission, but give them an opportunity to respond. If no response, then publish or not depending on each case
Shadi: I don't want to hold anything up because a developer does not respond - as long as we don't "make it up" then it should be ok
Sandor: how should we approach the companies? If they get a random email from Sandor Herramhof, then it likely to be ignored
Shadi: lets see what we have as an email - should be ok with a good email and a good subject
Shadi: see <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/entry.php>
... normally your regular W3C UserName & Password will give you access
... it is a form that will generate an email to send to the tool developer,
or an RDF entry that can be plugged into the database
... uploads the form to a new location ...
Shadi: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/entry-temp.php
Yeyha, can you see the form?
shadi: two parts - vendor & tool details AND tool features
Shadi: if anything is missing from the checkbox
choices, then add to Other and it will be added
... if any categories are missing, then send me a note (and CC the list) and
I'll see what I can do
<Yehya> It looks very detailed, I will check it further
Carlos: should each version be a separate entry?
Shadi: it depends - often thye are two quite different version, eg a desktop version and an online version
Stave: where do we put the fact that it is an online version?
Shadi: under "user interface" - needs to be addedd
<shadi> ACTION: add online services as types of tools (possible in UI) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action01]
Carlos: what about CMS tools under Authoring Tool Compatibility
<scribe> ACTION: Change the term "compatibility" to "integration" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action02]
<shadi> ACTION: feedback for EOWG, change "compatibility" to "integration" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action03]
Steve: we also need "tool version"
<shadi> ACTION: add tool version [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action04]
<shadi> ACTION: add HTML to export formats [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action05]
<shadi> ACTION: add CSV to export formats [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action06]
Carlos: what about indicating the target audience? Developers vs Managers, etc
Shadi: this is scope creep - lets refer this back to EOWG
<shadi> ACTION: feedback for EOWG, consider target audience and target customers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action07]
Shadi: other information can always go into the
"description" field
... at the end of the form, you can generate an email (to copy and paste) and
send to the vendor/developer OR generate an entry
Steve: headers are required to make the data understandable
Shadi: I'm working on that
Carlos: the third sentence needs to mention the data source
Andrew: what about the "subject" for the email?
Steve: need to select a subject that will get filtered as SPAM
Andrew: what about just "w3c accessibility tool list updates"?
<shadi> proposed topic: W3C List of Evaluation Tools
Shadi: proposed subject "W3C List of Evaluation Tools"
Steve: the current wording implies that a non-response will lead to no list
<shadi> suggested text: "Please review this information, complete any missing fields or provide changes"
Shadi: suggested text: "Please review this information, complete any missing fields or provide changes"
Steve: what about offering an option to not be listed?
Andrew: we should tell them we will publish this information unless we recceive corrections or ammendments
<shadi> This information will be published unless we receive correction or ammendments. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact
<shadi> <shadi@w3.org>
<shadi> <ET TF MEMBER>
<scribe> ACTION: shadi to amend form accounting for the previous discussion points [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action08]
Shadi: WRT generating an entry - just copy and
paste into an email and send to Shadi PLUS list
... When info is received back from vendor/developer, then re-enter and send
entry to Shadi & list
Carlos: but means we have to enter twice?
Shadi: means it will be correct from the
vendor/developer
... and just a short term use - so can we live with this?
Shadi: see - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2005/tools>
Andrew: Shadi should just assign, say, 5 each to those of us already participating - leaves some for others who are not on the call, or still have to be approved
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to assign 5 tools to each participant - starting from the top [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/14-er-minutes.html#action09]
Sandor: offering to take extra, say 10
Steve: we can all ask for extras when we finish the ones assigned
Yehya, are you happy to get assigned 5 tools?
Shadi: Thursday 24th at the same time
<Yehya> 5 are ok., when finished I could ask for other
<shadi> yes, please! :)
Shadi: and then, tentatively, Wednesday 30th November