See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20111115
eric: first formal publication online
... Try to publish a first public working draft for feedback
... People who are not in the meeting have agreed to publication
Detlev: sections sampling, evaluation are quite empty
eric: agree much is missing in document, but it is clear which direction we are going
<Mike_Elledge> yep
denis: don't care about missing texts, just send something out to show public what we are working on
<Detlev> Fair enough ..
vivienne: understand Detlev. There are a lot of blanks, but if we need something out there we should publish, but maybe wait a week or so
<vivienne> Ah, I see. Didn't know what was happening in the background
eric: Different groups thinking about working on the same thing, we can show we are already working on something
F.e. Mandate 376 ( EU )
shadi: agree with Detlev / Vivienne, but the next time we can bring it in will be early december. If we do not publish this week it will probably be janaury before our first publication.
<vivienne> With that in mind, Shadi, I'm happy for it to go out there now.
leonie: good opportunity to get it on peoples radar, we don't risk (possibly) already having taking a wrong turn, lots of feedback
<Detlev> yes agree
<AmyChen> +1 to what Leonie said
Mike: depends on what we hope to achieve, earlier publication is good for early feedback
eric: agree with mike
shadi: encourage ourself to publish every 3 months
<Mike_Elledge> detrimental
<Mike_Elledge> :^)
<dboudreau> yes
<vivienne> fine with me
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<Detlev> fine
eric: decision send it to wcag with intention to publish
+1
<SarahSwierenga> +1 try to publish - like you said, they may kick it back anyway
<kerstin> I agreed already :-)
shadi: there exist a possibility wcag sends it back
vivienne: are there plans to ask us to write parts?
eric: I have written alot already, because of anticipated discussion I haven't published everything at once
<vivienne> yes, that's fine
Eric: I will write proposal, TF replies
vivienne: agrees
denis: getting new content in would postpone publication ??
shadi: there is a choice: add new content before
publishing or publish first, add content later. I suggest publishing this now
and working on another branch
... continue discussing in TF on editorial draft
<dboudreau> +1 to shadi's explanation
<vivienne> sounds good to me
eric: proposal: do not add information in this version, at the same time work on a different editor draft
<dboudreau> I support this proposal
eric: the proposal to publish this version is agreed by TF
<vivienne> I'm happy then to send out the Nov.15 version
Detlev: fair enough to get it out, but it lacks a bit of "meat".
<Detlev> fine.
eric: detlev, your concerns/questions will be
discussed
... small things that have to be changed can be added this day, shadi proposes
this version to working group
... we continue work in a next editorial draft
shadi: i sent editorial cleanups to the list
<Detlev> looked OK to me
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Nov/0059.html
<shadi> [[
<shadi> 6. Expertise required for using this methodology
<shadi> Users of the Methodology are assumed to be knowledgeable of WCAG 2.0,
<shadi> accessible web design, assistive technology, and of how people with
<shadi> different disabilities use the Web. Evaluation according to this
<shadi> methodology can be carried out by individuals but using review teams
<shadi> with combined expertise involving people with disabilities and older
<shadi> people in the evaluation process is strongly recommended.
<shadi> 6.1 Using Review Teams with Combined Expertise
<shadi> The _W3C/WAI evaluation resource suite_ provides complementary guidance
<shadi> on _Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility_. Review
<shadi> teams can provide better coverage of the expertise required in the
<shadi> understanding of web technologies, evaluation tools, barriers that
<shadi> people with disabilities experience, assistive technologies and
<shadi> approaches that people with disabilities use, and accessibility
<shadi> guidelines and techniques.
<shadi> 6.2 Involving People with Disabilities and Older People
<shadi> The _W3C/WAI evaluation resource suite_ provides complementary guidance
<shadi> on _Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility_. Evaluating with
<shadi> users with disabilities and with older users can identify additional
<shadi> issues that are not easily discovered by expert evaluation alone. It can
<shadi> make the evaluation process more effective and more efficient,
<shadi> especially when users are involved throughout the development process.
<shadi> ]]
shadi: proposed section 6 rewrite
<vivienne> yes
mike: evaluation should not only be based on automatic evaluation
vivienne: in reply to mike: some of the documents referred to do mention this. The section mainly concerning automated testing would be section 9. We do not want to repeat what is in other documents, just put references. Maybe we should put something about 'just'machine evaluation in the introduction
<Mike_Elledge> yes
eric: i will see if i can add it to the introduction
<Mike_Elledge> utopic
denis: is there a way where we could have a split in approaches (1 person / team)
eric: is in the text, meant for individuals, recommend teams.
denis: needs more emphasis
<kerstin> +1 for dboudreau
amy: like shadi's propose text, add "although user testing ....." from original text
<AmyChen> Like Shadi's proposed text. Was comparing Shadi's text with Eric's original text. Please add sentence "Although user-testing is not a requirement under this Methodology, we strongly recommend that users with disabilities and older users, are involved in the evaluation."
sarah: section 10 conformity: do we need to say more on this subject
eric: i have text, maybe in next editorial draft?
sarah: outside world may want to weigh in at discussion on section 10
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say add "(optional)" to the sub-section titles and to also agree with clarifying the notes in section 10
shadi: add (optional) to heading about review team, section 10 needs more atm about wcag2 conformance
eric: agree
<SarahSwierenga> +1
<ericvelleman> +1
eric: changes by shadi: everyone agrees?
<vivienne> +1
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<dboudreau> +1
+1
<AmyChen> +1
eric: everyone agrees
<Detlev> can't tell that quickly.. never mind
<Detlev> I#ll try
shadi: takes some time before publishing
<kerstin> I'll send either comments or a +1 to the list
<dboudreau> sounds great
eric: discussion on section 7.1,2,3,4,5 through the list
denis: easier to split e-mails so everyone can follow
eric: will start 1 discussion, if needed i will chop different discussion
shadi: this discussion will be on a future draft, not this version
<dboudreau> if possible, one thread by section or sub-section, though discussions will get mixed up ;p
<vivienne> good night all
<Detlev> Bye
eric: next week is thanksgiving: postpone meeting?
<vivienne> Aussies don't do Thanksgiving either
eric: can not join
<Detlev> let's postpone
<Mike_Elledge> Thanks, everyone! Yes, if have meeting, schedule early. We in US will be in a food coma after noon...
<dboudreau> yes, let's
<dboudreau> dec 8th
shadi: Postponing the next meeting to december 8th