Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

04 Mar 2009


See also: IRC log


Mike, CarlosI, Johannes, Shadi


ERT WG meeting during TPAC 2009

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2009Feb/0020.html

MS: TPAC 2-6 November 2009 Santa Clara, CA, USA.
... exploring potential interest of group attending

SAZ: this year need to confirm hotel reservations
... we haven't met in the USA for quite a while
... although most participants are not from the USA it could encourage more participation
... need to decide for the next telecon at most

MS: will be attending
... good opportunity to share with other groups

CI: not sure at this moment
... if need to have an answer right now it would be a no

SAZ: depend on what groups will meet
... may decide later in the year depending on the group progress

JK: quite a difficult week
... probably won't attend

SAZ: looks like a no for a full group meeting
... should have a F2F this year
... need to think where and when

MS: could do an european F2F meeting again with also phone participation

SAZ: can wait until last call stage and then think more seriously about F2F

<shadi> https://www.hcii2009.org/

SAZ: HCI International in July, San Diego
... paper submission
... interesting to keep an eye on it

MS: concusion: no official F2F group meeting at TPAC but need a F2F probably coinciding with other event

<squillace> RESOLUTION: no F2F at TPAC 2009 but keep eyes and ears open for F2F for our group with regard to time and palce, possibly co-locating with anotehr conference (e.g. HCI in July 2009)

WAI Evaluation Resource Suite

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/

SAZ: need to update the evaluation resources suite according to WCAG 2
... have submitted a proposal to the Leonardo da Vinci program with Braillenet, Bartimeus and University of Linz
... its and educational program
... working on methodologies and guidelines assistance
... waiting for a response
... if starting not before November or so
... work will be done through WAI WGs
... participation will be open to as much stakeholders as possible
... previous work on UWEM methodology for WCAG 1.0
... working on WCAG 2 guidelines and 1.0 methodology at the same time
... hope to reuse as much as possible
... UWEM projects are public and have ended

JK: as a UWEM participant would like to say that some parts where WCAG 1.0 dependant but others are generic enough to be resused

SAZ: two different parts
... the tests themselft
... and the procedure

Review of updated EARL 1.0 Schema with special attention to the conformance section

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090302

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090302#conformance

MS: like the new approach
... looks more clear
... like the overall layout
... can go section by section

CI: would like to clarify that cnt:Content and http:Response are optional

MS: how does RDF handle different languages?
... about the third point in 4.2

<carlosI_> JK: the problem is that you can have several different serializations for the same model

<carlosI_> JK: wich one to select?

<carlosI_> JK: maybe can't be possible to use some RDF tools because they not use the same serialization

<carlosI_> SAZ: the question is if it is a restriction o requirement we want to adopt or not

MS: then why are we using RDF at all?

JK: think it is contrary to the RDF philosophy in general

SAZ: it won't be a must

JK: RDF tools shouldn't be required to support specific serializations

SAZ: about Appendix A
... the idea is that tools should be able to consume or produce all the terms if there is information for them

JK: about 4.1 point 1
... does it mean that the tool should be RDF aware or may one use an XML tool and say it is a conforming processor

SAZ: it should be able to handle any serialization

<shadi> add "any" to RDF/XML serialization (in point 4.2)

<shadi> consider "must *be able to*" to 4.2.2 and 4.3.2

RESOLUTION: drop section 4.4

SAZ: need to clearly separate between EARL conforming and supporting tools
... not sure whether it is the right wording
... related to the EARL Lite idea

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/03/04 14:37:35 $