13:36:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eval
13:36:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-eval-irc
13:36:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:36:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eval
13:36:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3825
13:36:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
13:36:05 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
13:36:05 <trackbot> Date: 29 September 2011
13:36:13 <shadi> chair: Eric
13:36:53 <shadi> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Sep/0155.html
13:37:09 <shadi> agenda+ Welcome
13:37:16 <shadi> agenda+ Requirements
13:37:29 <shadi> agenda+ Resources related to our Methodology
13:37:40 <shadi> agenda+ Any other business
13:49:43 <vivienne> vivienne has joined #eval
13:50:05 <ssirois> hi vivienne 
13:50:43 <vivienne> hi, just getting skype up and running.
13:51:31 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
13:51:38 <Zakim> +??P5
13:51:40 <ssirois> vivienne: on my side i won't be able to participate on the vocal side (not enough bandwidth on the railway)
13:52:07 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #eval
13:52:36 <vivienne> zakim, ??p5 is vivienne
13:52:36 <Zakim> +vivienne; got it
13:52:49 <Zakim> +Kathy
13:53:38 <Zakim> +??P11
13:53:42 <shadi> zakim, ??p11 is me
13:53:42 <Zakim> +shadi; got it
13:54:36 <shadi> regrets: Samuel
13:55:25 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
13:55:25 <Zakim> Kathy should now be muted
13:55:34 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
13:55:34 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
13:56:14 <shadi> regrets: Samuel, Tim, Alistair
13:58:41 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #eval
13:58:51 <Zakim> +??P19
13:59:12 <kerstin> kerstin has joined #eval
13:59:31 <Zakim> -??P19
13:59:47 <AmyChen> AmyChen has joined #eval
13:59:51 <Zakim> +??P20
14:00:07 <ssirois> zakim, ??P20 is me
14:00:07 <Zakim> +ssirois; got it
14:00:15 <Zakim> +Sarah
14:00:19 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
14:00:25 <Zakim> + +1.925.694.aaaa
14:00:32 <shadi> zakim, mute ssirois
14:00:32 <Zakim> ssirois should now be muted
14:00:44 <AmyChen> zakim, qw3birc@128.30.52.28 is me
14:00:44 <Zakim> sorry, AmyChen, I do not recognize a party named 'qw3birc@128.30.52.28'
14:00:49 <Sarah> Sarah has joined #eval
14:00:55 <kerstin> hi all, I'm confused, am I P19 or ....aaaa?
14:00:58 <Mike> Mike has joined #eval
14:01:01 <EricVelleman> EricVelleman has joined #eval
14:01:08 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Kathy (muted), shadi, ssirois (muted), Sarah, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.925.694.aaaa
14:01:41 <shadi> zakim, aaaa is AmyChen 
14:01:42 <Zakim> +AmyChen; got it
14:01:43 <Zakim> +Tim
14:01:45 <Sarah> Sarah Swierenga - Hello, I'm muted
14:01:50 <AmyChen> zakim, aaaa is me
14:01:50 <Zakim> sorry, AmyChen, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:02:06 <dboudreau> dboudreau has joined #eval
14:02:09 <shadi> zakim, who is noisy?
14:02:10 <Zakim> -Tim
14:02:17 <Zakim> + +31.65.127.aabb
14:02:19 <Zakim> shadi, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AmyChen (58%)
14:02:35 <shadi> zakim, mute AmyChen 
14:02:35 <Zakim> AmyChen should now be muted
14:02:53 <Zakim> +Tim
14:02:56 <Zakim> +??P41
14:02:58 <Zakim> +??P35
14:03:18 <kerstin> I think I made it
14:03:25 <ssirois> shadi: no problem. at least i'll be able to hear and follow conversation. i think i'll not try to unmute myself since the bandwidth is really not enough
14:03:43 <Mike> Hello all 
14:03:56 <EricVelleman> Zakim, aabb is EricVelleman
14:03:58 <Zakim> +EricVelleman; got it
14:04:00 <Zakim> +dboudreau
14:04:02 <richard> richard has joined #eval
14:04:07 <Ryladog> Good Morning for some
14:04:08 <dboudreau> hi everyone
14:04:16 <dboudreau> zakim, mute me
14:04:16 <Zakim> dboudreau should now be muted
14:04:33 <kerstin> zakim, ??P41 is me
14:04:33 <Zakim> +kerstin; got it
14:04:51 <kerstin> I hope that I am P41
14:04:54 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:04:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Kathy (muted), shadi, ssirois (muted), Sarah, Katie_Haritos-Shea, AmyChen (muted), EricVelleman, Tim, kerstin, ??P35, dboudreau (muted)
14:05:18 <kerstin> zakim, mute me
14:05:18 <Zakim> kerstin should now be muted
14:05:22 <Mike> Mike Elledge 
14:05:58 <shadi> zakim, ??p35 is richard 
14:05:58 <Zakim> +richard; got it
14:06:13 <shadi> zakim, Sarah has Mike
14:06:13 <Zakim> +Mike; got it
14:06:35 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
14:06:35 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Welcome" taken up [from shadi]
14:07:49 <vivienne> I can if no one else wants to
14:08:03 <Kathy> I can also do it but I need to leave early
14:08:03 <dboudreau> i was an utter failure at doing so a few weeks ago...
14:08:22 <Zakim> + +1.502.632.aacc
14:08:25 <shadi> scribe: richard 
14:09:04 <shadi> zakim, aacc is Elle
14:09:04 <Zakim> +Elle; got it
14:10:27 <richard> hello
14:10:45 <EricVelleman> world
14:10:47 <kerstin> sorry for not scribing, i have the same problem like denis, you won't be happy with me as scribe
14:11:11 <richard> me not a design fault
14:11:20 <vivienne> Don't worry guys, I think we're all pretty tolerant here.
14:11:36 <richard> VV I should jhope so
14:11:54 <shadi> agenda?
14:12:15 <shadi> zakim, take up next
14:12:15 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Requirements" taken up [from shadi]
14:12:23 <Ryladog> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20110928
14:12:28 <ssirois> ok... even though i believe my english is not as good as dboudreau's, i promess i'll give a try at scibing next meeting (while i'll be at the office and not in train)
14:12:58 <richard> ev lmissing introduction, is that OK Will work on it with Devklev
14:13:32 <richard> Just scope as it includes goals, Clearer as just scope
14:13:44 <vivienne> The scope looks really good now
14:13:54 <richard> ev: thanks
14:14:27 <shadi> q+
14:14:35 <shadi> ack me
14:15:12 <shadi> "The methodology will be cross-tested by the Task Force and will include a reference to the test results"
14:16:05 <richard> shadi: unclear what cross tested means can we edit better, also look at co-ordination with other groups
14:16:19 <dboudreau> q+
14:17:28 <richard> shadi If we want to monitor ATAG we need a named person - but do we really need to do that
14:17:36 <vivienne> I'm not happy with the term 'monitor', seems like we're supervising rather than watching
14:18:23 <vivienne> maybe follow rather than monitor
14:18:31 <richard> ev: we can take it out. The idea was that we also look at the work being done in other groups, not necessary to co-ordinate just keep a watching brief
14:18:59 <shadi> "The Methodology will be written to be agnostic to the context of conformance evaluation so that in can be used for self-assessment by the manufacturer or supplier, for acceptance-testing by the user or purchaser, or for third-party evaluation by an independent body. This makes the Methodology compatible with quality assurance processes such as that defined by ISO/IEC Guide 7."
14:20:07 <dboudreau> ack me
14:20:32 <richard> ev: will look at the co-ordination section
14:21:02 <dboudreau> zakim, mute me
14:21:02 <Zakim> dboudreau should now be muted
14:21:15 <EricVelleman> q?
14:22:07 <shadi> q+ to ask about "during the development process" and if "Developers of Evaluation and Repair Tools" are primary audience
14:22:22 <kerstin> I'm missing freelancer testers
14:22:28 <richard> ev: target audience - I have remodelled it a bit. added advocates, These are now our tarfget audience
14:22:49 <Kathy> q+
14:22:57 <shadi> ack me
14:22:57 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask about "during the development process" and if "Developers of Evaluation and Repair Tools" are primary audience
14:23:38 <kerstin> q+
14:23:45 <richard> shadi: Does our method primarily cover the development phase, or is it primarily a final audit?
14:23:57 <Ryladog> I agree with Shadi
14:24:07 <dboudreau> @kerstin: wouldn't freelancers be a sub-group of the web content producers group?
14:24:19 <richard> EV: Primary audience is those wanting to evaluate against WCAG2
14:24:21 <EricVelleman> q?
14:24:24 <Kathy> ack me
14:24:49 <AmyChen> q+
14:25:16 <kerstin> @dboudreau don't think so, one can be accessibility consultant and not a web developer
14:25:37 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
14:25:37 <Zakim> Kathy should now be muted
14:25:41 <kerstin> zakim, umute me
14:25:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'umute me', kerstin
14:25:43 <EricVelleman> q?
14:25:44 <vivienne> I agree, leave out post-mortem
14:25:56 <shadi> ack kerstin
14:25:58 <kerstin> you can't hear me?
14:26:26 <EricVelleman> q?
14:26:34 <shadi> "Web accessibility consultancies and evaluation services"?
14:27:26 <richard> kerstin: missing freelance consultants - ie single people without an organisation
14:27:45 <Sarah> maybe use 'web accessibility evaluators'
14:27:46 <vivienne> I think that the term encompasses both individuals and corporations under consultancies
14:28:13 <vivienne> web accessibility specialists and evaluation services?
14:28:16 <EricVelleman> q?
14:28:18 <kerstin> zakim, mute me
14:28:18 <Zakim> kerstin should now be muted
14:28:21 <AmyChen> ack me
14:29:22 <shadi> [[While the Methodology will provide guidance on evaluation throughout the development process, it is specifically designed to inform on evaluation of existing websites; complementary WAI resources will provide further advice on evaluation during other stages of the development process.]]
14:30:45 <vivienne> +1
14:30:54 <Mike> q
14:31:06 <richard> +1
14:31:17 <shadi> q+ mike
14:31:18 <AmyChen> zakim, mute me
14:31:18 <Zakim> AmyChen should now be muted
14:31:21 <Ryladog> +1
14:31:22 <Mike> q+
14:31:29 <shadi> ack mike
14:31:41 <AmyChen> q+
14:31:56 <richard> Mike: are we being too restrictive ?
14:32:17 <shadi> q+ to ask for specific suggestions to the current wording (pasted above)
14:32:46 <EricVelleman> q?
14:32:48 <richard> ev: We can use the methodology at any time during teh process, but users will find advice on earlier stages
14:32:50 <AmyChen> ack me
14:33:33 <AmyChen> zakim, mute me
14:33:33 <Zakim> AmyChen should now be muted
14:33:33 <shadi> ack me
14:33:34 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask for specific suggestions to the current wording (pasted above)
14:33:48 <richard> Amy: We would use evaluatin during development - but not want to make a performance claim until finished
14:34:12 <AmyChen> conformance claim (not performance claim)
14:34:59 <vivienne> I'm happy with the scope now.
14:35:04 <richard> ev: Look at last paragraph of Scope section - is this adequate. are there any specific suggestions for changing it ?
14:35:11 <shadi> [[While the Methodology will provide guidance on evaluation throughout the development process, it is specifically designed to inform on evaluation of existing websites; complementary WAI resources will provide further advice on evaluation during other stages of the development process.]]
14:35:38 <dboudreau> I'm also happy with this suggestion
14:36:06 <dboudreau> +1
14:36:11 <richard> +1
14:36:12 <Kathy> +1
14:36:13 <Ryladog> +1
14:36:14 <Mike> +1
14:36:15 <AmyChen> +1
14:36:17 <ssirois> +1
14:36:22 <EricVelleman> +1
14:37:51 <richard> shadi: Eric and Shadi will look at target audience to include existing audience but ensure it includes users at development stages
14:38:24 <shadi> s/ensure it/ensure secondary audience
14:38:34 <Ryladog> q+
14:38:43 <richard> EV: most discussion on requirements 3 and 4
14:39:02 <Sarah> +1
14:40:36 <richard> Katie: Greg usually uses a term - if a number do testing and get the same result 80/20 rule would make it replicable. ie 80% get the same result 
14:41:34 <AmyChen> q+
14:42:03 <shadi> ack Ryladog 
14:42:39 <richard> ev: perhaps we should go back to reliable for Requ 4. This makes it a bit more flexible and reliable has a bit of theis 80/20 bit. We need to bear in mind quality martix 
14:42:57 <Mike> consistent?
14:43:09 <vivienne> I prefer reliable to replicable.
14:43:13 <AmyChen> ack me
14:43:27 <kerstin> q+
14:44:20 <richard> R4 includes word "should" that allows for some leeway
14:44:55 <Sarah> Referring to an 80% percentage could be an issue - how would it be measured? 80/20 is a rule of thumb, not an exact number
14:44:57 <vivienne> q+
14:45:03 <AmyChen> zakim, mute me
14:45:03 <Zakim> AmyChen should now be muted
14:45:05 <Ryladog> +1
14:45:06 <EricVelleman> q?
14:45:09 <kerstin> Zakim, unmute me
14:45:09 <Zakim> kerstin should no longer be muted
14:45:14 <Mike> q+
14:45:22 <richard> EV: R14 can we look at this first
14:45:33 <vivienne> ack me
14:45:51 <kerstin> sorry
14:46:17 <kerstin> Voraussetzung
14:46:32 <shadi> Pre-requisit
14:46:45 <richard> Kirsty: what is the german word for replicable and reliable
14:47:15 <ssirois> i agree with sarah on the 80/20 rule of thumb. i have difficulty understanding how a tolerence could be a metric at all. i see that as a "human appreciation" thing!?
14:47:26 <EricVelleman> shall we change R04 to reliable then?
14:47:29 <Ryladog> +1
14:47:33 <vivienne> +1
14:47:36 <Kathy> +1
14:47:38 <dboudreau> +1
14:47:42 <Mike> q+
14:47:46 <richard> ev: is everyone happy to change to reliable in R4
14:47:52 <EricVelleman> q?
14:47:53 <shadi> q- ker
14:47:53 <richard> +1
14:48:06 <shadi> ack mike
14:48:11 <kerstin> @Richard Replizierbarkeit und Reliaibität, or in verbs replizierbar / reliabel
14:48:18 <vivienne> q+
14:48:20 <kerstin> Zakim, mute me
14:48:20 <Zakim> kerstin should now be muted
14:49:13 <kerstin> @shadi thx, my english today is more horrible than on other days, I think, it's the heat ;-)
14:49:17 <Mike> +1  for reliable
14:49:23 <Sarah> reliable +1 - based on Mike's comments about the definitions
14:49:47 <ssirois> +1 for reliable, absolutely
14:49:47 <EricVelleman> q?
14:50:40 <richard> viviene: I agree - replicable is srict, do it again exactly, so I agree with using reliable
14:50:56 <shadi> q+ to remind that WCAG WG dropped the 80/20 approach because of that
14:50:57 <Ryladog> Yes I think so for human judgement
14:51:10 <richard> viviene: is there W3C document on the 80/30 rule ?
14:51:33 <shadi> q-
14:51:37 <shadi> q- v
14:51:39 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:51:39 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
14:52:10 <Ryladog> q+
14:52:15 <richard> Shadi: Yes in tecniques it was included that they should be reliable - I will look it up again for reliablity, replicability and ambiguity ?
14:52:21 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/intro.html
14:52:32 <richard> EV: Any one else welcome to help
14:52:40 <shadi> ack Ryladog
14:54:53 <vivienne> q+
14:55:00 <vivienne> ack me
14:55:26 <richard> ev: R3 unambigous - some want it other want to lose it - Is it our interpretation of WCAG or the methodology techniques 
14:55:51 <richard> Kathy: the end result should be unambigous ?
14:56:08 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:56:08 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
14:56:11 <Mike> q+
14:56:58 <Zakim> -shadi
14:57:08 <richard> IMike: It can be confusing - are we talking about the methodolgy description being unambigous ?
14:57:26 <richard> EV: I will try to clarify it.
14:57:38 <EricVelleman> Proposal for rephrasing: The Methodology will be written using terminology and a style that is as easy to translate as possible; where necessary terms will be defined in a glossary.
14:57:53 <dboudreau> q+
14:58:00 <dboudreau> ack me
14:58:08 <EricVelleman> q?
14:58:18 <Mike> Nope--had my say. :^)
14:58:21 <richard> EV: translatable - should we use new phrase?
14:59:32 <richard> ev: methodology should be easy to translate into german etc. If needbe a glossary will help
15:00:00 <dboudreau> zakim, mute me
15:00:00 <Zakim> dboudreau should now be muted
15:00:01 <richard> ??: Yes it must be in clearest language possible - in English or whatever !
15:00:13 <Zakim> -Elle
15:01:13 <richard> EV: Must point out R18 - Quality Assurance. If we want to be a formal document it must comply with these guidelines.
15:01:14 <Zakim> -vivienne
15:01:14 <EricVelleman> q?
15:01:43 <vivienne> skype just kicked me out, but I have to go to another meeting now.
15:02:18 <vivienne> will follow anything else on irc and minutes.  Bye for now.
15:02:24 <richard> EV: Resources - some interesting stuff coming in - but what do we do with them. Could go at bottom of page - but it might get too big
15:02:52 <vivienne> -vivienne
15:02:54 <richard> ev: discuss on teh list and keep sending in resources please.
15:02:57 <vivienne> vivienne has left #eval
15:03:28 <kerstin> shadi, dropped out, 17:00
15:03:35 <dboudreau> zakim, unmute me
15:03:35 <Zakim> dboudreau should no longer be muted
15:03:43 <Ryladog> ciao folks
15:03:52 <ssirois> zakim, unmute me
15:03:52 <Zakim> ssirois should no longer be muted
15:03:55 <kerstin> bye
15:04:01 <Mike> Thanks all! Till then!!
15:04:02 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:04:02 <Kathy> bye
15:04:04 <richard> bye
15:04:06 <EricVelleman> bye
15:04:07 <Zakim> -Tim
15:04:08 <AmyChen> bye!
15:04:08 <Zakim> -dboudreau
15:04:10 <Zakim> -ssirois
15:04:11 <Zakim> -richard
15:04:11 <Zakim> -kerstin
15:04:12 <Sarah> Bye. Have a good day.
15:04:13 <Zakim> -EricVelleman
15:04:14 <Zakim> -Kathy
15:04:27 <shadi> richard, thanks for scribing!
15:04:38 <Zakim> -AmyChen
15:04:41 <richard> hope it was OK
15:04:46 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
15:04:46 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:04:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:04:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-eval-minutes.html trackbot
15:04:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:04:48 <RRSAgent> I see no action items