13:50:04 RRSAgent has joined #eval 13:50:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-irc 13:50:06 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:50:06 Zakim has joined #eval 13:50:08 Zakim, this will be 3825 13:50:08 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 13:50:09 Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference 13:50:09 Date: 22 September 2011 13:50:15 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started 13:50:22 +??P9 13:50:50 zakimn, ??p9 is me 13:51:14 zakim, ??P9 is me 13:51:14 +vivienne; got it 13:51:21 Kathy has joined #eval 13:56:42 kerstin has joined #eval 13:57:18 hi all, I need a few minutes to connect with skype, sorry 13:57:19 + +1.978.443.aaaa 13:57:39 Detlev has joined #eval 13:57:41 zakim, aaaa is Kathy 13:57:41 +Kathy; got it 13:58:30 EricVelleman has joined #eval 13:58:31 +Katie_Haritos-Shea 13:59:39 + +31.30.239.aabb 14:00:17 Zakim, aabb is me 14:00:17 +EricVelleman; got it 14:00:26 zakim, mute me 14:00:26 Kathy should now be muted 14:00:30 + +1.517.432.aacc 14:00:35 zakim, mute me 14:00:35 vivienne should now be muted 14:00:40 agarrison has joined #eval 14:01:29 + +1.415.298.aadd 14:01:56 + +49.404.318.aaee 14:02:17 +??P34 14:02:24 + +1.517.353.aaff 14:02:25 zakim, ??p34 is me 14:02:25 +shadi; got it 14:02:36 Sarah has joined #eval 14:02:57 Zakim, aaee is me 14:02:57 +Detlev; got it 14:03:16 AmyChen has joined #eval 14:03:35 zakim, aadd is AmyChen 14:03:35 +AmyChen; got it 14:03:37 +??P39 14:03:44 Ryladog has joined #eval 14:03:49 zakim, aaff is Tim 14:03:58 +Tim; got it 14:04:08 zakim, ??p39 is agarrison 14:04:12 +agarrison; got it 14:04:18 Zakim, mute me 14:04:20 Detlev should now be muted 14:04:26 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:04:28 On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Kathy (muted), Katie_Haritos-Shea, EricVelleman, +1.517.432.aacc, AmyChen, Detlev (muted), shadi, Tim, agarrison 14:05:09 +??P43 14:05:30 Hello, I'm on the phone, too (Sarah Swierenga) 14:05:32 LeonieWatson has joined #Eval 14:05:37 -??P43 14:05:42 EricVelleman_ has joined #eval 14:05:58 zakim, aacc is Sarah 14:06:00 +Sarah; got it 14:06:09 zakim, sarah has Mike 14:06:09 +Mike; got it 14:06:17 +[IPcaller] 14:06:58 zakim, ipcaller is Kerstin 14:06:58 +Kerstin; got it 14:07:14 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:07:14 On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Kathy (muted), Katie_Haritos-Shea, EricVelleman, Sarah, AmyChen, Detlev (muted), shadi, Tim, agarrison, Kerstin 14:07:16 Sarah has Mike 14:07:37 ack me 14:07:41 zakim, mute me 14:07:41 Kerstin should now be muted 14:07:59 zakim, unmute me 14:07:59 Kathy should no longer be muted 14:08:04 zakim, mute me 14:08:04 vivienne should now be muted 14:08:27 zakim, mute me 14:08:30 Kathy should now be muted 14:09:53 3825# 14:10:07 Zakim, unmute me 14:10:07 Detlev should no longer be muted 14:10:32 +??P53 14:10:45 zakim, ??p53 is LeonieWatson 14:10:46 +LeonieWatson; got it 14:10:50 Zakim, mute me 14:10:50 Detlev should now be muted 14:11:30 zakim, unmute me 14:11:30 Kerstin should no longer be muted 14:12:03 zakim, mute me 14:12:03 Kerstin should now be muted 14:12:58 I will 14:13:25 scribe: Leonie 14:13:27 scribe: LeonieWatson 14:13:30 scribenick: LeonieWatson 14:13:39 zakim, next item 14:13:39 I see nothing on the agenda 14:13:57 Topic: Discussing requirements 14:14:38 EV: Replace critical path analysis by processes. 14:14:51 EV: We'll use the term "complete processes" 14:15:06 EV: People asked for methodology to be cross tested. It's a good addition. 14:15:15 q+ 14:15:23 ack me 14:15:40 DF: Is it clear when we say we'll include reference to the test results? 14:15:54 EV: I can make it longer than this, agreed. 14:16:02 rrsagent, make minutes 14:16:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-minutes.html LeonieWatson 14:16:06 Zakim, mute me 14:16:06 Detlev should now be muted 14:16:14 EV: Can we add the reson for the methodology? 14:16:30 EV: Reasonable to add this. 14:16:47 EV: Do we want to add both preliminary and full evaluation in section goals? 14:16:58 q+ 14:17:01 q+ 14:17:12 q+ 14:17:15 EV: My proposal is to work on the full evaluation, and keep the preliminary evaluation out of this more formal way of doing things. 14:17:17 q+ 14:17:39 q+ 14:18:13 AC: Will the full evaluation cover parts of a website or just complete websites? 14:18:25 Regrests: Liz, Vincent, Denis, Kostas, Tim 14:18:27 Agree with Eric - concentrate on full evaluation 14:18:32 Regrets: Liz, Vincent, Denis, Kostas, Tim 14:18:33 ack me 14:18:35 EV: I don't think a preliminary check would be suitable in the full methodology. 14:18:39 Chair: Eric 14:18:51 q- amy 14:19:00 VC: We need to be clear what the term preliminary check means. 14:19:29 VC: If we decide not to include preliminary checks, we need to be clear what it is we're not including. 14:19:31 zakim, mute me 14:19:31 vivienne should now be muted 14:19:32 14:19:34 EV: Good addition. 14:19:38 zakim, unmute me 14:19:38 Kerstin should no longer be muted 14:19:41 ack me 14:19:44 q? 14:19:52 q? 14:20:18 KW: For this methodology, I think we should focus on the full evaluation, but Vivienne's point is a good one. 14:20:25 zakim, mute me 14:20:25 Kathy should now be muted 14:20:52 zakim, mute me 14:20:52 Kerstin should now be muted 14:20:58 q- kerstin 14:20:58 Vincent has joined #eval 14:20:59 q? 14:21:06 ack Ryladog 14:21:45 + +1.514.312.aagg 14:21:49 EV: A full evaluation could be applied to a page or a full site. 14:22:07 EV: Preliminary to me is an evaluation that gives a sense of the accessibility, rather than a full evaluation. 14:22:13 zakim, aagg is Vincent 14:22:13 +Vincent; got it 14:22:19 http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html 14:22:20 rrsagent, make minutes 14:22:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-minutes.html LeonieWatson 14:22:24 Hi 14:22:39 regrets -Vincent 14:22:52 zakim, mute me 14:22:52 Vincent should now be muted 14:23:29 KW: I wouldn't call that preliminary, it's a target full evaluation? 14:23:38 q+ 14:24:00 zakim, umute me 14:24:00 I don't understand 'umute me', kerstin 14:24:23 ack kerstin 14:25:09 KP: It depends on the choice over whether to test 1, or 10 or some other number of pages. 14:25:19 q+ 14:25:20 rrsagent, make minutes 14:25:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-minutes.html LeonieWatson 14:25:30 Tim has joined #eval 14:25:51 EV: We'll add in a section about co-ordination with other groups. 14:25:56 ack detlev 14:26:21 +Tim_Boland 14:26:41 DF: Shadi has provided a scope that does nicely. Tim suggested checking it against other existing definitions. 14:27:17 EV: In section scope we should add members of the group involved in other sepcifications, for example ATAG. This was agreed. 14:27:37 Zakim, mute me 14:27:37 Detlev should now be muted 14:27:40 q+ 14:28:02 EV: We decided to keep unique interpretation, but need to change the description. 14:28:11 q? 14:28:29 AC: I like "unambiguous" better than "unique". 14:29:12 EV: There was a requirement for independent verification and quality control. 14:29:25 q+ 14:29:28 EV: Would this be a good requirement to add? 14:29:30 q+ 14:29:33 rrsagent, make minutes 14:29:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-minutes.html LeonieWatson 14:29:35 I'm okay with it 14:29:39 ack me 14:29:45 q? 14:30:33 melledge has joined #eval 14:30:38 DF: Looking at conformance statements for WCAG, it says a list of URIs should be included to which the claim relates. This means a conformance claim has to be backed up by this list. 14:30:53 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ 14:31:02 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs 14:31:16 Zakim, mute me 14:31:16 Detlev should now be muted 14:31:18 q- amy 14:31:54 AC: Could we change the wording to say "this methodology can be used by a party providing independent verification...". 14:32:10 EV: The idea is to say that this methodology supports independent verification. 14:32:16 AC: Needs to be more clear. 14:32:24 EV: Agreed, we'll look at that. 14:32:46 KW: Say "may" instead of "can"? 14:33:10 DF: Are these requirements supposed to be estable? 14:33:40 EV: I'm not sure other W3C documents are always testable, so I don't think we have to be formal about it. 14:34:01 q+ 14:34:17 SA: The more clear we are, the less ambiguity we'll have. 14:34:50 s/DF: Are these requirements supposed to be estable?/TB: Are these requirements supposed to be testable?/ 14:35:04 rrsagent, make minutes 14:35:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-minutes.html LeonieWatson 14:35:26 SA: We need to balance between spending too much time on requirements, and having them too ambiguous to use. 14:35:58 SA: Ideally yes, requirements should be testable though. 14:37:23 ack me 14:37:31 q+ 14:37:44 ack detlev 14:38:33 DF: Two things have been mixed up. Independent verification is required by the WCAG conformance claim guidance, whether our requirements can be tested or backed up is a different thing. 14:39:05 rssagent, make minutes 14:39:36 Zakim, mute me 14:39:36 Detlev should now be muted 14:41:00 EV: So we had Tim's remark about testability of requirements, and Detlev's remark about conformance claims under WCAG. 14:41:29 rrsagent, make minutes 14:41:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-minutes.html LeonieWatson 14:41:30 q? 14:41:30 ok 14:43:37 Me: The methodology and the requirements are separate things. We need to be mindful of that. 14:44:22 EV: Not sure we can have a requirement for objectivity? 14:44:31 sure 14:44:40 scribe: vivienne 14:45:13 Scribe: Vivienne 14:45:15 EV: should we add objectivity as a requirement if there is a clear way of representing it? 14:45:27 -LeonieWatson 14:45:30 EV: maybe we need some more discussion on this 14:46:00 q+ 14:46:02 q+ 14:46:09 q- later 14:46:10 EV: added J - validity. Could be an extra requirement 14:46:17 q? 14:46:20 ack me 14:47:14 SA: EARL is a machine-readable way of writing, but doesn't add to the result. It does not provide more validity. EARL would supplement human-readable reports 14:48:08 SA: re validity issue. 2 types of validity. Methodology is check conformance to WCAG 2. This is slightly different from validity of accessibility itself. 14:48:41 EV: we are focusing on the way that the evaluation results are documented. It is not validity of doing the tests. 14:49:11 q? 14:49:11 SA: maybe we're having trouble with the term validity 14:49:13 ack me 14:51:08 DF: it is important to have validity in there. It is validity of the conformance to the requirements in WCAG. That would need to be tested and re-tested all the time for the claim you make for a site - is it true? If you re-test or have another definition you may see that the site is not valid because you left something out. It needs to be grounded by use-cases where you can see how that 14:51:08 works for that section of technology. Is our claim valid and can be backed up by user testing? 14:51:16 EV: do you mean that user testing is obligatory? 14:51:37 DF: it has a way of linking the technology in WCAG and those assessments for the techniques. 14:51:52 q+ 14:52:01 EV: is that not covered in WCAG 2 itself? 14:52:16 q+ 14:52:38 DF: it is in the glossary and conformance, but a methodology may not include that. I think it's important to create a model case base. 14:53:14 Zakim, mute me 14:53:14 Detlev should now be muted 14:53:49 Zakim, unmute me 14:53:49 Kerstin was not muted, kerstin 14:53:49 ME: having case studies or examples is a good idea. It would support that 14:54:20 Kerstin: validity is important. It should be clear that we measure against the conformance level and not anything else 14:54:28 q? 14:54:33 zakim, mute me 14:54:33 Kerstin should now be muted 14:54:37 q- m 14:54:39 q- k 14:55:10 EV: I will do an update and send it to Shadi after this meeting. 14:55:21 Topic: Face to Face meeting 14:55:59 EV: re face to face meeting at CSun or elsewhere? Where to host the meeting? Please send information to Shadi if you can host the meeting at CSUN or elsewhere? 14:57:15 SA: face to face meeting are useful to groups working. But it might be too early now, maybe February-April and we should have lots of work by then. If you're interested in hosting such an event let Shadi know. Need a meeting space with coffee etc. 14:57:53 EV: any other business? 14:58:38 EV: thanks to all who participate in online discussions.Please keep up that work. 14:58:52 bye 14:58:54 -Tim_Boland 14:58:55 bye 14:58:56 -agarrison 14:58:57 bye 14:58:57 -Tim 14:58:58 vivienne has left #eval 14:58:58 -Katie_Haritos-Shea 14:58:59 -Detlev 14:58:59 Thank you, bye 14:59:00 -Sarah 14:59:00 -AmyChen 14:59:02 -EricVelleman 14:59:05 -shadi 14:59:09 -Kathy 14:59:13 -Vincent 14:59:15 -vivienne 14:59:20 -Kerstin 14:59:22 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended 14:59:24 Attendees were vivienne, +1.978.443.aaaa, Kathy, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +31.30.239.aabb, EricVelleman, +1.517.432.aacc, +1.415.298.aadd, +49.404.318.aaee, +1.517.353.aaff, shadi, 14:59:26 ... Detlev, AmyChen, Tim, agarrison, Mike, Kerstin, LeonieWatson, +1.514.312.aagg, Vincent, Tim_Boland 14:59:28 quit 15:00:49 tracbot, make logs world 15:01:04 trackbot, make logs world 15:01:04 Sorry, shadi, I don't understand 'trackbot, make logs world'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 15:01:08 trackbot, make minutes 15:01:09 Sorry, shadi, I don't understand 'trackbot, make minutes'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 15:01:10 trackbot, make logs world 15:01:10 Sorry, shadi, I don't understand 'trackbot, make logs world'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 15:01:35 rrsagent, make logs world 15:01:39 rrsagent, make minutes 15:01:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-minutes.html shadi 15:01:46 rrsagent, make logs world 15:01:47 EricVelleman_ has left #eval 16:01:53 trackbot, end meeting 16:01:53 Zakim, list attendees 16:01:53 sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 16:01:54 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:01:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-eval-minutes.html trackbot 16:01:55 RRSAgent, bye 16:01:55 I see no action items