13:26:41 RRSAgent has joined #tsdtf 13:26:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-irc 13:26:48 Zakim has joined #tsdtf 13:26:54 Vangelis has joined #tsdtf 13:26:57 zakim, this will be tsd 13:26:57 ok, shadi; I see WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 13:27:05 meeting: TSD TF 13:27:14 chair: CarlosV, Christophe 13:28:09 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2007Feb/0024.html 13:28:29 agenda+ De-briefing on ERT F2F 13:28:49 agenda+ Updates to the review process document 13:29:06 agenda+ Example entries based on currently available test samples and reviews 13:29:21 agenda+ New proposal of work for the TF 13:29:46 WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has now started 13:29:48 +Shadi 13:29:49 Christophe has joined #tsdtf 13:30:53 Tim has joined #tsdtf 13:31:40 +Tim_Boland 13:32:32 +Vangelis_Karkaletsis 13:33:00 CarlosV has joined #tsdtf 13:33:30 +Christophe_Strobbe 13:33:39 MichaelC has joined #tsdtf 13:33:55 zakim, who's on the call? 13:33:55 On the phone I see Shadi, Tim_Boland, Vangelis_Karkaletsis, Christophe_Strobbe 13:34:09 +Cooper 13:34:29 +??P3 13:34:44 + +43.702.468.aaaa 13:35:00 zakim, ??P3 is really CarlosV 13:35:00 +CarlosV; got it 13:35:29 zakim, +43 is ReinhardR 13:35:29 +ReinhardR; got it 13:36:51 agenda? 13:37:10 zakim, take up agendum 1 13:37:10 agendum 1. "De-briefing on ERT F2F" taken up [from shadi] 13:37:42 scribe: Tim 13:38:07 SZ: recent ERT f2f 22-23 Feb in Spain - small group 13:38:34 SZ: last call for EARL hopefully 13:38:53 for this TF, changes to HTTP vocabulary, RDF pointers 13:39:04 feed back into open questions with TCDL 13:39:26 RDF pointers can reference target now 13:39:37 editors need to produce new draft 13:39:51 CS: could already point to files before RDF changed? 13:40:00 SZ: should be simpler now 13:40:42 zakim, close agendum 1 13:40:42 agendum 1, De-briefing on ERT F2F, closed 13:40:43 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 13:40:44 2. Updates to the review process document [from shadi] 13:40:45 zakim, take up agendum 2 13:40:45 agendum 2. "Updates to the review process document" taken up [from shadi] 13:41:06 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2006/tests/process 13:41:41 SZ: steps taken to review test sample once uploaded 13:42:13 SZ: various phases - structure review (simplified in future), then 13:42:25 SZ: content evaluation, then straw poll 13:43:02 SZ: main changes in later part of document, checklists to help reviewer 13:43:16 SZ: should be easier to read now and more helpful 13:43:39 SZ: structure review is objective criteria, then more subjective checklist 13:44:00 for content review, hard to pin down 13:44:15 SZ: four points to look at, then looked at by rest of group 13:44:58 CS: first item in checklist for content review, last sentence is unclear? 13:46:31 SZ: don't try to combine several test procedures into one test sample? 13:46:45 CS: syntax appears confusing 13:48:03 TB: What constitutes an issue? 13:48:12 SZ: issues are things to be addressed 13:49:22 SZ: is there understanding of four criteria in content review? 13:49:37 CV: don't like last one 13:49:52 SZ: are these good points? should there be others? 13:52:18 RESOLUTION: "or to combine several issues in one test" changed to "in other words, it must not combine several issues in one test" 13:53:19 SZ: mutual to interpretation - comments? 13:54:13 CV: WCAG WG has not yet made up its mind? 13:54:50 ..posed some questions to WG, most still yet not responded to 13:55:00 MC: How were these questions raised? 13:55:11 CV: in mailing list 13:55:40 MC: just send me pointers and will follow up 13:56:04 CS: in future, if things not quite clear, what process do we follow? 13:56:25 MC: good question for chair planning call, please send to mailing list? 13:56:32 CS: OK 13:57:24 SZ: suggest if sample ready, but questions about test procedure, test sample put on hold and feedabck into WG 13:57:44 SZ: outcomes of TF is provide reflection on test procedures 13:58:11 CV: could be bottleneck, BentoWeb record decision and wait for feedback 13:58:27 CS: maybe minority of test procedures? 13:58:46 SZ: no point in producing test samples, if test procedures change 13:59:12 q+ 13:59:21 CV: involves definitions and interpretations, need to provide additional input into WG? 13:59:50 SZ: TF focuses on other test samples while questions pending to WG.. 14:00:19 SZ: now have more work than frozen test samples, samples need to be frozen while under consideration by WG 14:01:08 CS: map to SC, create test samples for things which have no matching technique or failure 14:01:32 SZ: optimistic that WCAG WG will work on techniques, and feed back into TF 14:01:42 ack Michael 14:02:26 MC: can't make promises about how quickly WCAG WG will respond, don't want to unnecessarily slow down TF 14:02:53 MC: it's good for TF to push WG forward a bit, but if TF is blocked by lack of 14:03:15 response within WG, need to minimize impact on TF.. 14:03:40 are close to processing LC comments, attention focus on techniques, need for tests will become 14:03:57 much higher soon 14:04:12 MC: response from WG will change, and should plan for that 14:04:27 ack me 14:04:41 SZ: if test procedure prone to interpretation, hold test sample, document quesetions to WCAG WG, 14:04:50 and continue work on something else 14:05:04 SZ: shouldn't be affected that much right now 14:05:40 SZ: minimal and complete - comments? 14:06:08 CS: interpretation of minimal? 14:06:32 CV: difficult balance between minimal and meaningful? 14:06:55 SZ: put meaningful in description somewhere? 14:07:48 ACTION: SZ to consider words "meaningful", "realistic", and "in context of the files" 14:08:13 SZ: effective and efficient - comments? 14:08:48 CV: problems with explanation? 14:09:17 CV: some BentoWeb test samples not easy to implement? 14:09:42 SZ: "as easy as possible to implement"? 14:10:08 SZ: if two ways, and select harder one, not the idea of it 14:10:32 CS: also refering to failures 14:11:09 CV: remove "easy to implement" 14:11:39 RESOLUTION: remove "easy to implement" 14:12:14 SZ: other comments on content review or structure review checklist? 14:12:49 CS: test procedures have T or F outcomes, metadata pass or fail, should these match? 14:13:49 CS: P or F in metadata should match outcome of test procedure 14:14:15 SZ: if doesn't match, wouldn't that be reinterpretation? 14:14:33 ACTION: SZ to consider wording on matching outcomes 14:16:51 V: wondering about completeness of SC (regarding test samples and techniques) 14:17:17 EV: need to address this somewhere? 14:17:33 s/EV/VE 14:18:11 SZ: not looking at SC at all in this TF 14:18:26 VE: are they all in there? 14:20:18 VE: need to measure if test samples cover everything relative to SC? 14:20:44 SZ: this falls under techniques development 14:21:19 SZ: beyond our scope 14:21:42 SZ: feedback from evaluating test samples, back into WG 14:22:23 MC: not in scope of TF to work on techniques, but TF could find gaps in techniques and feed into WG 14:24:23 SZ: maybe in minds of chairs of TF, review of test sample with this perspective, but not 14:24:34 explicit outcome of review process, but implicit 14:25:30 MC: high priority to testing issues around techniques 14:25:55 SZ: possible outcome to WCAGWG 14:27:02 ACTION: CV and SZ to think about how to feedback coverage issues into WCAG WG 14:27:28 zakim, close agendum 2 14:27:28 agendum 2, Updates to the review process document, closed 14:27:29 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:27:30 3. Example entries based on currently available test samples and reviews [from shadi] 14:27:36 zakim, take up agendum 4 14:27:36 agendum 4. "New proposal of work for the TF" taken up [from shadi] 14:28:09 SZ: current participation is issue - need more participants 14:28:46 SZ: set up CVS repositories need to upload test samples and start reviewing 14:29:10 free up telecon time to review samples 14:29:31 SZ: see how it goes, maybe get more participation or attention from WCAG WG 14:30:27 CV: voting in group to go in that direction - what is process? 14:30:48 CV: maybe biweekly calls? 14:31:04 SZ: inform WCAG WG chairs? 14:31:55 ACTION: MC to notify chairs about change in working mode 14:32:37 SZ: meet next week to hand out action items 14:33:52 ACTION: CV to give action items to BentoWeb people to upload test samples 14:34:25 SZ: next meeting in two weeks 14:34:49 -Tim_Boland 14:34:51 -Vangelis_Karkaletsis 14:34:58 -CarlosV 14:36:57 -ReinhardR 14:37:00 -Shadi 14:37:38 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:37:38 On the phone I see Christophe_Strobbe, Cooper 14:45:32 zakim, drop chris 14:45:32 Christophe_Strobbe is being disconnected 14:45:34 -Christophe_Strobbe 14:45:37 zakim, drop cooper 14:45:37 Cooper is being disconnected 14:45:38 WAI_TSDTF()8:30AM has ended 14:45:40 Attendees were Shadi, Tim_Boland, Vangelis_Karkaletsis, Christophe_Strobbe, Cooper, +43.702.468.aaaa, CarlosV, ReinhardR 14:45:44 zakim, bye 14:45:44 Zakim has left #tsdtf 14:45:55 rrsagent, make logs world 14:45:59 rrsagent, make minutes 14:45:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-minutes.html shadi 14:46:00 rrsagent, make logs world 14:46:05 rrsagent, bye 14:46:05 I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-actions.rdf : 14:46:05 ACTION: SZ to consider words "meaningful", "realistic", and "in context of the files" [1] 14:46:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-irc#T14-07-48 14:46:05 ACTION: SZ to consider wording on matching outcomes [2] 14:46:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-irc#T14-14-33 14:46:05 ACTION: CV and SZ to think about how to feedback coverage issues into WCAG WG [3] 14:46:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-irc#T14-27-02 14:46:05 ACTION: MC to notify chairs about change in working mode [4] 14:46:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-irc#T14-31-55 14:46:05 ACTION: CV to give action items to BentoWeb people to upload test samples [5] 14:46:05 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-irc#T14-33-52