See also: IRC log
CI: CV is out traveling
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/charter3
SAZ: current charter is scope of work for working group
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/charter4
expires end of Apr 2008
SAZ: updated charter tempalte and more scrutiny of charters
introduction - overall mission of group
ER is working much more closely with UAAG, ATAG, WCAG
charter runs until Mar 2010
Secope - main scope of work
supporting docs include the guide, HTTP in RDF, pointers, and other auxilary documents
EARL Schema is only rec-track document
JK: auxilary documents are already listed in section 2; can we reference?
<shadi> ACTION: clarify "supporting documents" in point 1 of the scope [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/09-er-minutes.html#action01]
CI: confusion around point about metadata and "input"
SAZ: provide some sort of guidance for development of tools that may be RDF-agnostic
ok
<shadi> ACTION: consider "providing guidance on the development of tools that..." in point 3 of the scope [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/09-er-minutes.html#action02]
SAZ: Success criterion section has no content currently
request for assistance on stating criteria of emasurement of success
what are the expectations of ourselves and what should they be from others?
usually met with implementations of specifications (i.e. EARL Schema)
EARL is unique - tools can output EARL and tools can process EARL
JK: criteria targeted at specifications (deliverables) or for the group?
SAZ: for the group but based on success of rec-track docs
need not focus on rec-track docs only but these will be most scrutinized
JK: if funding were provided, test suite for WCAG2 might be one criterion
CI: don't see relation between funding and mission of working group
SAZ: agree with CI - funding is distinct from mission of group
part of core work is definitely development of test suites
should be a success criteria to develope such suites but make it clear that we're not alone
possible statement of success criterion: contribute to the development of test suites among WCAG, UAAG, and ATAG (and possibly PF)
KJ: +1 for contribute; responsibility is not ours alone
CI: +1
MS: +1
... lots of test suties around ARIA already so not sure how much work is
there
SAZ: some discussion about evaluation technology and methodology and ER would certainly be involved if that work got off the ground
<shadi> cotntribute to the development of an updated WAI EValuation Resource Suite
SAZ: includes evaluation tools, conformance, evaluation in specific contexts
CI: sounds more like work around supporting documents
<shadi> cotntribute to the development of an updated WAI EValuation Resource Suite, especially to the development of an evaluation methodology around WCAG 2.0
<shadi> **potential development
<shadi> **consider WAI evaluation methodology
MS: I think "evaluation methodology" will need lots of clarification
SAZ: while we're not actively supporting WCAG1.0, whatever is supported around WCAG2.0 evaluation methodology
ok
JK: Can we expand methodologies to toher technologies (eg mobile)
SAZ: yes, but probably out of our scope
MS: why wouldn't be an accessibility evaluation methodology in the context of mobile?
CI: main use case is accessibility but try to stay as generic as possible with regard to evaluation methodology or technology
SAZ: EARL implementations must be part of criteria
who can we count on for these implementations?
CI: hope to implement but depends on time line and resources
and, of course, what constitutes an implementation?
SAZ: focus on output EARL rather than tools
that process EARL
... Dan C from HTML5 has been doing scripting based on EARL for testing;
might want to follow-up with him and build upon his work for implementation
of process EARL
yet, focus should be on output EARL for now
MS: will follow-up with management here at IBM for candidates for implementations; possibly validation engine in ACTF
MS: follow-up with Paciello Group on evaluation toolbar
SAZ: list of deliverables
... LC should happen prior to large summer break in Europe in Aug
dropping from LC to WD in May with EARL 1.0 schema
publish EARL 1.0 schema as LC and most related notes in June
first working group note for Pointers
CI: can meet deadline for publication of poitners in RDF
SAZ: ideal publication of CR for EARL Schema 1.0 at end of July or very early August
updated notes (e.g. pointers, http)
four months for implementation: Aug thru Oct
correction: Aug thru November
enter PR mode in mid-November and final rec published in December 2008
along with updates to notes
MS: So proposed charter ends Dec 2008?
JK: discussion of moving HTTP, content in RDF to rec-track
when to do this - before or after final publication in Dec 2008?
MS: What are the advantages to recommendation v. note?
SAZ: more visibility as rec
MS: what's ITF/IETF?
IETF = Internet Engineering Task Force; describe common internet protocols
SAZ: might consider HTTP in RDF a rec-track in charter
"would be published as working group note *or* CR"
CI: rec, as seen from outside, is more authoritative
SAZ: 04/16 not available and traveling week of 04/23
SAZ: 05/07 may also be problematic for many
no conf on 04/16
tentative on 04/23
confirmed for 04/30
tentative on 05/07
JK to check in with CV