<shawn> [08:39] <Zakim> ... Henk, Liam_McGee, Bingham
Judy: the abstract has been clarified
... are we happier with this?
William: authoring tools should be more highlighted
Judy: ATAG not mentioned in the abstract -- talking about Authoring Tools generically.
Wayne: answers my question, this example makes it clear. query need to say web content instead of WCAG.
Judy: first para explains how adopting WCAG
leverages authoring tool development.
... abstract doesn't weave in the interdependency of the different parts of
web accessibility
shawn: abstract misses ATAG and UAAG, perpetuates myth that it's all about WCAG
Judy: agree
... can I revise the abstract without sending it round for comment again?
Doyle: would like to see it again
Judy: any objections?
All: no objections
Judy: we now have a short option
... may be useful as an alternative
... however, we mainly need feedback on the longer version.
Shadi: disclaimer that the short report is
still far from being what Henk and Eric were suggesting. Noth versions still
need work.
... There are lots of different ways to do an evaluation report. Question:
which is best as an educational tool?
Henny: our clients ask for short reports to benchmark where they are, and come back for a longer report to work out where they can get to.
Henk: short report is not enough, what if the site has thousands of pages?
<shawn> notes on different types of reports: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/07/reporting
Henk: we have a possibility to make remarks
just under the checkpoint, with a link to a brochure with more
information.
... long version is great for the site tested, but not for a site with
hundreds of pages.
Shadi: suggest a page in between the demo
overview page and the report that explains reporting, and then links through
to the report
... either a complete report that is single and comprehensive with info about
how it was compiled and how it could be modularized for other applications,
or whether we should modularize it from the start.
Henk: simple report with links to info, or full report with extended example. What does the reqs document say?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/badtf
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/badtf
<judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/retrofit/requ-basite.html
Shadi: trying to get a direction to proceed
in.
... do we think that the present report is realistic?
Henny: value of the evaluations we conduct is as much educational as pass/fail -- the value is in the practical solutions provided.
William: query automated tools
Judy: we could revisit automated tools in a later version of this
William: suggest that the one tool that doesn't fail the vendor-neutrality principle is the W3C validator
Judy: scope-creep... perhaps in a later version.
Judy do people agree that for the purposes of the rport we want available with the BAD that we want people to have some explanation available of what's going on, to have an educative function?
Justin: not sure should explanatory content be part of this
Jack: Need meta description to put it in context
Shadi: will do further work along these
lines
... similar to the info in the overview for the demo sites
Judy: there are many ways in which evaluations
are provided and we may not be able to get agreement as to what constitutes
one.
... given the requirements, an evaluation report with explanatory material
should be implemented, with a meta-description to discuss it.
... agreement?
William: link in between the short and the long?
Shadi: they haven't been designed to work together.
Wayne: don't see the point of the before and after examples without some kind of a detailed explanation of how to get from one to another. Need the explanatory content. Very important.
Judy: seems that the majority view is that explanatory content is required.
William: meta-information needs to be properly distinguished from the examples
<shadi> ACTION: shadi continue to expand report and take a stab at providing meta-information about reports. if the meta-information attempt does not find consensus, fall back to long report version and put the rest of the work onto wish-list for future updates [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/17-eo-minutes.html#action01]
William: can we see raw results too?
Judy: scope creep? Leave for later version.
... any objections to the present version as default with some descriptive
information about the report?
All: no objections
Judy: we need to discuss further what is in an evaluation report.
Liam: type of report will depend on the needs of the client
Judy: not suggesting need to have one size fits all
Shadi: we can make it clear that the demo report is not intended to be the only way to write a report
Shawn: I have some info written up on different kinds of report.
Judy: Exploration not prescription.
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/07/reporting
<shawn> azkim, drop sylvie