See also: IRC log
SZ: recent ERT f2f 22-23 Feb in Spain - small
group
... last call for EARL hopefully
for this TF, changes to HTTP vocabulary, RDF pointers
feed back into open questions with TCDL
RDF pointers can reference target now
editors need to produce new draft
CS: could already point to files before RDF changed?
SZ: should be simpler now
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2006/tests/process
SZ: steps taken to review test sample once
uploaded
... various phases - structure review (simplified in future), then
... content evaluation, then straw poll
... main changes in later part of document, checklists to help reviewer
... should be easier to read now and more helpful
... structure review is objective criteria, then more subjective checklist
for content review, hard to pin down
SZ: four points to look at, then looked at by rest of group
CS: first item in checklist for content review, last sentence is unclear?
SZ: don't try to combine several test procedures into one test sample?
CS: syntax appears confusing
TB: What constitutes an issue?
SZ: issues are things to be addressed
... is there understanding of four criteria in content review?
CV: don't like last one
SZ: are these good points? should there be others?
RESOLUTION: "or to combine several issues in one test" changed to "in other words, it must not combine several issues in one test"
SZ: mutual to interpretation - comments?
CV: WCAG WG has not yet made up its mind?
... posed some questions to WG, most still yet not responded to
MC: How were these questions raised?
CV: in mailing list
MC: just send me pointers and will follow up
CS: in future, if things not quite clear, what process do we follow?
MC: good question for chair planning call, please send to mailing list?
CS: OK
SZ: suggest if sample ready, but questions
about test procedure, test sample put on hold and feedabck into WG
... outcomes of TF is provide reflection on test procedures
CV: could be bottleneck, BentoWeb record decision and wait for feedback
CS: maybe minority of test procedures?
SZ: no point in producing test samples, if test procedures change
CV: involves definitions and interpretations, need to provide additional input into WG?
SZ: TF focuses on other test samples while
questions pending to WG..
... now have more work than frozen test samples, samples need to be frozen
while under consideration by WG
CS: map to SC, create test samples for things which have no matching technique or failure
SZ: optimistic that WCAG WG will work on techniques, and feed back into TF
MC: can't make promises about how quickly WCAG
WG will respond, don't want to unnecessarily slow down TF
... it's good for TF to push WG forward a bit, but if TF is blocked by lack
of
response within WG, need to minimize impact on TF..
are close to processing LC comments, attention focus on techniques, need for tests will become
much higher soon
MC: response from WG will change, and should plan for that
SZ: if test procedure prone to interpretation, hold test sample, document quesetions to WCAG WG,
and continue work on something else
SZ: shouldn't be affected that much right
now
... minimal and complete - comments?
CS: interpretation of minimal?
CV: difficult balance between minimal and meaningful?
SZ: put meaningful in description somewhere?
<scribe> ACTION: SZ to consider words "meaningful", "realistic", and "in context of the files" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-minutes.html#action01]
SZ: effective and efficient - comments?
CV: problems with explanation?
... some BentoWeb test samples not easy to implement?
SZ: "as easy as possible to implement"?
... if two ways, and select harder one, not the idea of it
CS: also refering to failures
CV: remove "easy to implement"
RESOLUTION: remove "easy to implement"
SZ: other comments on content review or structure review checklist?
CS: test procedures have T or F outcomes,
metadata pass or fail, should these match?
... P or F in metadata should match outcome of test procedure
SZ: if doesn't match, wouldn't that be reinterpretation?
<scribe> ACTION: SZ to consider wording on matching outcomes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-minutes.html#action02]
V: wondering about completeness of SC (regarding test samples and techniques)
VE: need to address this somewhere?
SZ: not looking at SC at all in this TF
VE: are they all in there?
... need to measure if test samples cover everything relative to SC?
SZ: this falls under techniques development
... beyond our scope
... feedback from evaluating test samples, back into WG
MC: not in scope of TF to work on techniques, but TF could find gaps in techniques and feed into WG
SZ: maybe in minds of chairs of TF, review of test sample with this perspective, but not
explicit outcome of review process, but implicit
MC: high priority to testing issues around techniques
SZ: possible outcome to WCAGWG
<scribe> ACTION: CV and SZ to think about how to feedback coverage issues into WCAG WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-minutes.html#action03]
SZ: current participation is issue - need more
participants
... set up CVS repositories need to upload test samples and start
reviewing
free up telecon time to review samples
SZ: see how it goes, maybe get more participation or attention from WCAG WG
CV: voting in group to go in that direction -
what is process?
... maybe biweekly calls?
SZ: inform WCAG WG chairs?
<scribe> ACTION: MC to notify chairs about change in working mode [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-minutes.html#action04]
SZ: meet next week to hand out action items
<scribe> ACTION: CV to give action items to BentoWeb people to upload test samples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/27-tsdtf-minutes.html#action05]
SZ: next meeting in two weeks