13:51:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eval
13:51:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-eval-irc
13:51:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:51:23 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eval
13:51:24 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3825
13:51:24 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
13:51:25 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
13:51:25 <trackbot> Date: 13 October 2011
13:51:37 <shadi> chair: Eric
13:51:44 <shadi> scribe: Samuel
13:51:53 <shadi> scribenick: ssirois
13:53:22 <vivienne> vivienne has joined #eval
13:53:42 <shadi> regrets: Detlev, Alistair, Richard, Kostas
13:55:16 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #eval
13:55:17 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
13:55:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:55:55 <Zakim> +Kathy
13:56:02 <shadi> zakim, call shadi-617
13:56:02 <Zakim> ok, shadi; the call is being made
13:56:04 <Zakim> +Shadi
13:56:16 <Zakim> +ssirois
13:56:20 <Liz> Liz has joined #eval
13:56:48 <ssirois> zakim, who is on phone
13:56:48 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on phone', ssirois
13:57:04 <Zakim> +Liz
13:57:20 <vivienne> zakim, ?? IPcaller is me
13:57:20 <Zakim> I don't understand '?? IPcaller is me', vivienne
13:57:37 <vivienne> zakim, ??IPcaller is me
13:57:37 <Zakim> sorry, vivienne, I do not recognize a party named '??IPcaller'
13:57:54 <vivienne> zakim, IPcaller is me
13:57:55 <Zakim> +vivienne; got it
13:58:15 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
13:58:16 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
13:58:39 <ssirois> zakim, mute me
13:58:39 <Zakim> ssirois should now be muted
13:59:10 <Zakim> + +1.510.522.aaaa
14:00:11 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
14:00:15 <shadi> zakim, aaaa is Amy
14:00:15 <Zakim> +Amy; got it
14:00:26 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Kathy, Shadi, ssirois (muted), Liz, Amy, Katie_Haritos-Shea
14:00:32 <Zakim> + +1.517.432.aabb
14:00:45 <EricVelleman> EricVelleman has joined #eval
14:00:53 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Kathy, Shadi, ssirois (muted), Liz, Amy (muted), Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.517.432.aabb
14:01:05 <SarahSwierenga> SarahSwierenga has joined #eval
14:01:17 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
14:01:20 <Zakim> Kathy should now be muted
14:01:40 <Zakim> + +31.30.239.aacc
14:01:40 <shadi> zakim, aabb is me
14:01:41 <Zakim> +shadi; got it
14:01:50 <SarahSwierenga> zakim, aabb
14:01:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aabb', SarahSwierenga
14:01:55 <EricVelleman> zakim, aacc is EricVelleman
14:01:58 <Zakim> +EricVelleman; got it
14:02:07 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:02:09 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #eval
14:02:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Kathy (muted), Shadi, ssirois (muted), Liz, Amy (muted), Katie_Haritos-Shea, shadi, EricVelleman
14:02:21 <mike_elledge> mike_elledge has joined #eval
14:02:40 <shadi> zakim, shadi is really Sarah
14:02:41 <Zakim> sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named 'shadi'
14:02:51 <Zakim> +Mike
14:03:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:03:19 <AmyChen> AmyChen has joined #eval
14:03:26 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Kathy (muted), Shadi, ssirois (muted), Liz, Amy (muted), Katie_Haritos-Shea, shadi, EricVelleman, Mike, [IPcaller]
14:04:15 <shadi> agenda+ Welcome
14:04:15 <shadi> agenda+ Title of the Methodology
14:04:15 <shadi> agenda+ Other open issues about the requirements
14:04:15 <shadi> agenda+ Next step, the Methodology
14:04:15 <shadi> agenda+ Any other business
14:04:42 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
14:04:43 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Welcome" taken up [from shadi]
14:05:18 <shadi> zakim, ipcaller is Leonie
14:05:18 <Zakim> +Leonie; got it
14:05:34 <shadi> zakim, shadi.a is really Sarah
14:05:34 <Zakim> sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named 'shadi.a'
14:05:49 <LeonieWatson> LeonieWatson has joined #Eval
14:06:28 <ssirois> akt
14:06:34 <ssirois> zakim, unmute me
14:06:34 <Zakim> ssirois should no longer be muted
14:07:36 <shadi> latest version of the requirements available here: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology-reqs/
14:07:51 <shadi> zakim, take up next
14:07:51 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Title of the Methodology" taken up [from shadi]
14:08:02 <ssirois> EricVelleman: great discussion on the name of the methodology. Great ideas and thanks to all for contributing.
14:09:12 <ssirois> EricVelleman: 3 candidates for a name.
14:09:13 <Vincent> Vincent has joined #eval
14:09:36 <LeonieWatson> q+
14:10:06 <Zakim> + +1.514.448.aadd
14:10:22 <shadi> zakim, aadd is Vincent
14:10:22 <Zakim> +Vincent; got it
14:10:36 <EricVelleman> q?
14:10:42 <AmyChen> +1
14:10:53 <Vincent> Zakim, aadd is Vincent
14:10:53 <Zakim> sorry, Vincent, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
14:11:19 <Vincent> Thank you shadi
14:11:34 <Vincent> zakim, mute me
14:11:34 <Zakim> Vincent should now be muted
14:11:39 <ssirois> shadi: suggests to keep an easy short name to remember
14:12:30 <LeonieWatson> ack me
14:12:51 <EricVelleman> Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0 ?
14:13:37 <EricVelleman> Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0
14:13:40 <AmyChen> q+
14:13:51 <EricVelleman> Methodology for Evaluating Website Accessibility Conformance
14:13:57 <EricVelleman> q?
14:14:09 <shadi> ack a
14:14:12 <shadi> ack a
14:15:20 <EricVelleman> q?
14:15:28 <ssirois> AmyChen: it is a good idea to seperate the title from the short name that will be used on a "daily" basis which is more convenient in order that we won't have to explain an accronym everytime we speak of the methodology.
14:16:23 <LeonieWatson> q+
14:16:40 <Zakim> -Vincent
14:16:41 <ssirois> EricVelleman: so we could keep the actual name that we have (Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0) and keep a short name like "WAICAG Check"
14:17:36 <shadi> "Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology"
14:17:46 <Vincent> I ran short of battery. As soon as he other device is ready, I'm back on line :-(
14:17:56 <shadi> "Accessibility Evaluation Methodology"
14:18:00 <Tim> Tim has joined #eval
14:18:18 <shadi> "Evaluation Methodology for Accessibility"
14:18:32 <ssirois> LeonieWatson: why don't we keep a short title like "Accessibility Evaluation Methodology" and keep that name in conversations? no accronym or shorter name.
14:18:49 <Zakim> +Tim_Boland
14:18:53 <vivienne> I rather like just something simple like" website accessibility evaluation methodology
14:19:04 <LeonieWatson> +1 to Vivienne
14:19:38 <vivienne> why do we even need an acronym?
14:19:49 <AmyChen> Q+
14:19:53 <ssirois> EricVelleman: it could be interesting to add "website" to LeonieWatson's name, which makes us coming back to our original title. website is important, but we could drop WCAG 2.
14:19:56 <LeonieWatson> ack me
14:20:06 <EricVelleman> q?
14:20:22 <vivienne> q+
14:20:36 <shadi> ack a
14:20:37 <ssirois> shadi: what about the word "conformance" in the title? do we want to clarify that it is a conformance evaluation?
14:20:38 <shadi> ack a
14:20:42 <EricVelleman> q?
14:21:18 <vivienne> ack me
14:21:46 <ssirois> AmyChen: for me, sounds clear it is a methodology of conformance. But about the "WCAG 2.0", we could drop the "2.0" in order to be inclusive on futur WCAG work.
14:22:14 <vivienne> mute me
14:22:24 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:22:24 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
14:22:27 <ssirois> vivienne: when talking about accessibility and parameters of W3C, the conformance is assumed. so we do not need the "conformance" noise in the title.
14:22:32 <Tim> q+
14:22:33 <Kathy> +1 I agree
14:22:36 <shadi> Candidate: "Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology"
14:22:37 <vivienne> +1
14:22:37 <EricVelleman> Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology 
14:22:42 <LeonieWatson> +1
14:22:44 <mike_elledge> +1
14:22:46 <vivienne> +1
14:22:47 <Kathy> +1
14:22:47 <EricVelleman> +1
14:22:50 <Tim> +1
14:22:57 <SarahSwierenga> +1
14:23:07 <Liz> +1
14:23:19 <shadi> ack t
14:23:34 <ssirois> EricVelleman: proposes "Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology".
14:23:41 <ssirois> Adopted by every presents.
14:26:02 <ssirois> shadi: there is critics about accessibility view only on the conformance. that angle may forget some aspects of accessibility for some populations. so let's keep in mind that we do will have a conformance methodology.
14:26:16 <AmyChen> Maybe add the word "conformance" and WCAG in the abstract?
14:26:42 <EricVelleman> q?
14:27:11 <ssirois> shadi: even though we will surely suggest user tests in the methodology, it may not be directly include in the methodology. so it is a conformance methodology.
14:27:32 <shadi> - SiteAccess
14:27:32 <shadi> - WCAG-Check
14:27:32 <shadi> - AccessSite
14:27:32 <shadi> - WCAG-Site
14:27:32 <shadi> - AccessCheck
14:27:33 <shadi> - SiteCheck
14:27:35 <shadi> - CheckSite
14:27:37 <shadi> - WAMBAM
14:27:39 <shadi> - title 
14:27:50 <ssirois> shadi: now that we have a title, what is the "short name"?
14:27:54 <shadi> - WAEM
14:27:59 <shadi> - WAM
14:28:02 <shadi> - WEM
14:28:09 <vivienne> q+
14:28:13 <vivienne> ack me
14:28:30 <Ryladog_> WCAG-Check +1
14:28:42 <ssirois> EricVelleman: i do hear that we don't want another accronym that we'll have to explain everytime.
14:28:46 <Vincent> WCAG-Check +1
14:29:10 <EricVelleman> wcag-check?
14:29:19 <ssirois> vivienne: i'm not crazy about the accronym thing. i do prefer WCAG-Check, since that's what we are doing.
14:29:20 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:29:20 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
14:29:34 <mike_elledge> q+
14:29:36 <Ryladog_> +1
14:29:46 <LeonieWatson> Q+
14:29:57 <EricVelleman> q?
14:30:32 <Vincent> <abbr title="WCAG-Check (Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology)">WCAG-Check</abbr> ;-)
14:30:50 <Tim> q+
14:30:57 <ssirois> mike_elledge: wondering that we could end up with too much terms for the same thing.
14:31:41 <Ryladog_> q+
14:31:42 <vivienne> I'd prefer no acronym at all, but if we have to have a short name, go with something that doesn't require learning a new acronym
14:31:42 <ssirois> LeonieWatson: we could juste get a title and let it be. people will name it as they want anyways for there daily use.
14:31:49 <EricVelleman> q?
14:31:49 <LeonieWatson> ack me
14:32:45 <shadi> ack m
14:32:51 <shadi> ack t
14:32:58 <ssirois> shadi: even though people will use "custom names", it may still be interesting to address this issue with a catchy short name. it will pay off on the futur.
14:34:42 <shadi> ack Ryladog_ 
14:35:14 <mike_elledge> Web Accessibility Methodology for Evaluation (WAME)?
14:35:47 <ssirois> shadi: responding to Tim (couldn't get the question right) the shorter the name, the easier it will be promoted.
14:35:55 <ssirois> Ryladog_: wcag-check says it all.
14:35:56 <Zakim> +Vincent
14:36:12 <EricVelleman> q?
14:36:21 <ssirois> Zakim, mute me
14:36:21 <Zakim> ssirois should now be muted
14:36:24 <Vincent> zakim, mute me
14:36:24 <Zakim> Vincent should now be muted
14:36:24 <shadi> ack amy
14:36:44 <Vincent> I'm back on phone.
14:37:06 <shadi> WCAG-Eval
14:37:16 <ssirois> AmyChen: what about WCAG-Eval? since it's about evaluation.
14:37:18 <LeonieWatson> Q+
14:37:42 <vivienne> WCAG sounds like we evaluating WCAG?
14:37:44 <shadi> ack le
14:38:26 <ssirois> LeonieWatson: suggestion: WCAG-Methodology, because "eval" sounds like "evil"
14:38:37 <vivienne> WCAG Site-Check?
14:39:00 <ssirois> shadi: do we have to think more about that short name? we should push it to the mailing list again.
14:39:22 <ssirois> EricVelleman: yes. let's push it back to the list and discuss there.
14:39:41 <ssirois> shadi: we may check also with other groups if we could have outside ideas.
14:39:52 <EricVelleman> q?
14:39:52 <ssirois> EricVelleman: let's decide on our next meeting.
14:40:22 <shadi> ack amy
14:40:33 <shadi> WCAG-Method
14:40:46 <SarahSwierenga> okay with me
14:40:48 <vivienne> fine with me
14:40:56 <ssirois> AmyChen: let's add WCAG-Method to the discussion on the list.
14:41:10 <shadi> zakim, take up next
14:41:10 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Other open issues about the requirements" taken up [from shadi]
14:42:05 <vivienne> I'm okay with the document as it stands - looks great
14:42:08 <ssirois> EricVelleman: let's just wrap up the requirements for now, we could get back to those in the futur, but we can now start with the methodology. Anyone disagree?
14:42:11 <Kathy> I think we are good to move onto the methodology
14:42:18 <ssirois> Zakim, unmute me
14:42:18 <Zakim> ssirois should no longer be muted
14:42:46 <EricVelleman> q?
14:43:05 <ssirois> AmyChen: have trouble with R9: Consideration for occassional oversight errors
14:43:09 <vivienne> pre-requisites is spelled incorrectly, isn't it?
14:43:47 <ssirois> shadi: it was an attempt to describe in other words the "tollerence" aspect of the methodology.
14:44:35 <ssirois> AmyChen: ok. let's keep the wording (Consideration for occassional oversight errors) and go on with the methodology. we can go back later.
14:44:35 <EricVelleman> q?
14:45:17 <ssirois> EricVelleman: i will send around a table of content (TOC) and everyone could describe what they espect of each sections (and add missing sections if any).
14:45:38 <EricVelleman> q?
14:45:43 <shadi> zakim, take up next
14:45:43 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, shadi
14:45:50 <ssirois> EricVelleman: keep it short. use keywords and then we'll be able to discuss later on each point.
14:45:51 <shadi> ack a
14:45:55 <shadi> zakim, take up next
14:45:55 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Next step, the Methodology" taken up [from shadi]
14:47:04 <ssirois> EricVelleman: i will not be present next week. i will send the TOC around somewhere tomorrow. we could use 2 weeks of list discussions (skip next meeting).
14:47:21 <ssirois> shadi: let's keep next week call. we'll see how things evolve on the list.
14:47:42 <ssirois> Zakim, mute me
14:47:42 <Zakim> ssirois should now be muted
14:47:59 <EricVelleman> q?
14:50:04 <ssirois> shadi: we have collected public methodologies that exists. now might be a good time to look at this again and see what fit's our requirements, what doesn't.
14:50:40 <vivienne> sounds good - I've been collecting quite a set of literature that I'm happy to contribute
14:51:50 <ssirois> zakim, take up next
14:51:50 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Any other business" taken up [from shadi]
14:51:51 <EricVelleman> q?
14:52:10 <ssirois> EricVelleman: any other business?
14:52:23 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/
14:52:55 <ssirois> shadi: just a little reminder about "Website Accessibility Metrics" that hopefully will have output that we could use as input.
14:53:21 <ssirois> EricVelleman: anyone of us going to that symposium on the 5th december 2011?
14:53:51 <ssirois> shadi: anyone is invited to submit a paper and present existing work.
14:54:15 <ssirois> EricVelleman: calls it a wrap 5 minutes before end! ;)
14:54:32 <Zakim> -Leonie
14:54:33 <Zakim> -Tim_Boland
14:54:34 <ssirois> zakim, unmute me
14:54:34 <Kathy> bye
14:54:34 <Zakim> ssirois should no longer be muted
14:54:38 <Vincent> Thank you and bye
14:54:42 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
14:54:42 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
14:54:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:54:43 <Zakim> -Mike
14:54:43 <Zakim> -Kathy
14:54:43 <Zakim> -EricVelleman
14:54:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:54:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-eval-minutes.html trackbot
14:54:44 <Liz> bye
14:54:44 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Kathy, Shadi, ssirois, Liz, vivienne, +1.510.522.aaaa, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Amy, +1.517.432.aabb, +31.30.239.aacc, EricVelleman, Mike,
14:54:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:54:44 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
14:54:46 <Zakim> ... Leonie, +1.514.448.aadd, Vincent, Tim_Boland
14:54:46 <Zakim> -Amy
14:54:48 <Zakim> -shadi