IRC log of eval on 2011-09-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

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 Reliaibit├Ąt, 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