14:49:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:49:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-eval-irc
14:50:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eval
14:50:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3825
14:50:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:04 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:50:04 <trackbot> Date: 19 January 2012
14:55:45 <shadi> zakim, call shadi-617
14:55:45 <Zakim> ok, shadi; the call is being made
14:55:47 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
14:55:48 <Zakim> +Shadi
14:55:51 <shadi> chair: Eric
14:56:17 <Liz> Liz has joined #eval
14:56:24 <shadi> regrets: Samuel, Emmanuelle
14:57:03 <Zakim> +Liz
14:57:04 <shadi> regrets: Samuel, Emmanuelle, Martijn
14:57:46 <Elle> Elle has joined #eval
14:58:17 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #eval
14:58:21 <vivienne> vivienne has joined #eval
14:59:38 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #eval
14:59:56 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
14:59:59 <Zakim> +Kathy
15:00:26 <Zakim> + +1.415.692.aaaa
15:00:29 <Zakim> +Detlev
15:00:35 <Detlev> zakim, aaaa is me
15:00:35 <Zakim> +Detlev; got it
15:00:39 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/minutes.html
15:01:22 <Zakim> +??P21
15:01:32 <vivienne> zakim, +??P21 is me
15:01:33 <Zakim> sorry, vivienne, I do not recognize a party named '+??P21'
15:01:38 <Zakim> +ericvelleman
15:02:06 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
15:02:06 <Zakim> sorry, vivienne, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:02:46 <vivienne> zakim, ??P21 is me
15:02:46 <Zakim> +vivienne; got it
15:02:54 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
15:02:54 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
15:03:00 <Detlev> zakim, mute me
15:03:00 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
15:03:05 <shadi> zakizakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:14 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Shadi, Liz, Kathy, Detlev.a, Detlev (muted), vivienne (muted), ericvelleman
15:03:35 <Detlev> zakim, unmute me
15:03:45 <Zakim> Detlev should no longer be muted
15:04:03 <shadi> zakim, detlev.a is really Elle
15:04:11 <Detlev> zakim, mute me
15:04:13 <Zakim> +??P7
15:04:19 <Zakim> +Elle; got it
15:04:27 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
15:04:30 <shadi> zakim, ??p7 is Kerstin
15:04:41 <kerstin> kerstin has joined #eval
15:04:49 <Zakim> +Kerstin; got it
15:04:55 <Zakim> +Sarah
15:05:24 <Zakim> + +1.248.342.aabb
15:05:42 <shadi> zakim, aabb is Mike
15:05:42 <Zakim> +Mike; got it
15:06:24 <SarahSwierenga> SarahSwierenga has joined #eval
15:06:26 <shadi> scribe: kerstin
15:06:56 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
15:06:56 <Zakim> Kathy should now be muted
15:07:11 <shadi> zakim, mute me
15:07:12 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
15:07:19 <kerstin> zakim, mute me
15:07:19 <Zakim> Kerstin should now be muted
15:07:28 <shadi> agenda+ Specific discussion on section 5.4 Barrier Recognition
15:07:34 <agarrison> agarrison has joined #eval
15:07:40 <shadi> agenda+ Specific discussion on section 5.5 Error Margin

15:07:54 <shadi> agenda+ Starting the evaluation section. Kick-off of the discussion.
15:08:01 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
15:08:01 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Specific discussion on section 5.4 Barrier Recognition" taken up [from shadi]
15:08:13 <kerstin> Eric resumes the discussion so far in the last weeks about 5.4
15:08:34 <ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120119.html
15:09:06 <shadi> [[ reminder that the latest Editor Draft is always available from http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/ ]]
15:09:13 <shadi> ack me
15:09:28 <kerstin> Eric will send a mail with a list of changes later
15:09:51 <Zakim> +??P39
15:09:56 <shadi> zakim, mute me
15:09:56 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
15:10:06 <shadi> zakim, ??p39 is agarrison 
15:10:06 <Zakim> +agarrison; got it
15:10:48 <lwatson> lwatson has joined #eval
15:11:21 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120119#barrierrecognition
15:11:52 <kerstin> Eric: not a lot of discussion about barrier recognition, more questions
15:12:37 <Detlev> q+
15:12:43 <Detlev> zakim, unmute me
15:12:43 <Zakim> Detlev should no longer be muted
15:12:47 <shadi> ack d
15:13:07 <Zakim> +??P42
15:13:20 <agarrison> q+
15:13:42 <kerstin> Detlev: many of the barriers might not be obvious, so it's necessary to evaluate the whole page to be sure
15:14:18 <kerstin> Detlev: looking for differences is important, not only looking for the same
15:14:21 <lwatson> zakim, ??p42 is lwatson
15:14:22 <Zakim> +lwatson; got it
15:14:32 <kerstin> Detlev, this was very fast
15:14:32 <Detlev> zakim, mute me
15:14:32 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
15:14:34 <ericvelleman> q?
15:14:54 <Detlev> agree
15:15:19 <shadi> q+
15:15:24 <shadi> ack ag
15:15:40 <kerstin> agarrison: barrier recognition needs better definition
15:16:11 <Detlev> q+
15:16:44 <ericvelleman> q?
15:16:47 <shadi> ack me
15:16:52 <kerstin> eric: will try to describe barrier recognition in a better way
15:17:15 <agarrison> I would actually remove the term barrier recognition
15:17:23 <Detlev> ack me
15:17:23 <kerstin> Shadi: Difference between stop condition and barrier recognition
15:17:23 <shadi> zakim, mute me
15:17:26 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
15:17:27 <Kathy> q+
15:17:28 <ericvelleman> q?
15:18:23 <kerstin> Detlev: I meant probably something else, distinction between severe problems, systematic erros and not severe problems
15:18:49 <kerstin> Detlev: question which errors could be tolerated? 
15:19:07 <agarrison> Surely this is the difference between A, AA and AAA
15:19:17 <kerstin> Eric: change of terminology for 5.5
15:19:24 <Kathy> ack me
15:19:32 <ericvelleman> q?
15:19:37 <Detlev> zakim, mute me
15:19:37 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
15:19:44 <shadi> [[ wonder if "incidental" is better than "accidental" ]]
15:20:25 <kerstin> Kathy: Discussing error margin, no good definition until now
15:21:29 <kerstin> Eric: issue will come back in the reporting
15:21:42 <Detlev> My understanding is that you pick a sample and run every page against *all* SC
15:21:52 <ericvelleman> q?
15:21:53 <Kathy> mute me
15:22:20 <shadi> zakim, mute kathy
15:22:20 <Zakim> Kathy should now be muted
15:22:29 <kerstin> Eric: first setup for when to stop evaluation this week
15:23:16 <kerstin> Who is speaking? for scribing
15:23:20 <shadi> [[ suggestions from Mike "types of errors" or "error reporting" ]]
15:23:45 <kerstin> Mike: documenting different type of errors 
15:23:59 <shadi> s/Who is speaking? for scribing/
15:24:25 <shadi> zakim, take up next
15:24:25 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Specific discussion on section 5.5 Error Margin
" taken up [from shadi]
15:24:28 <vivienne> q?
15:24:38 <vivienne> q?
15:24:40 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120119#errormargin
15:24:48 <kerstin> Eric: Do we accept error margin? example: one missing alt or Do we don't accept?
15:24:54 <vivienne> ack me
15:25:04 <vivienne> q+
15:25:11 <ericvelleman> q?
15:25:19 <shadi> ack v
15:26:30 <Zakim> +Mike.a
15:26:32 <Tim> Tim has joined #eval
15:26:47 <Kathy> q+
15:26:48 <Zakim> -Mike
15:26:56 <kerstin> Vivienne: testing against SCs, give the client possibility to fix them, first evaluation a lot pages will fail, after fixing there is a chance for conformance
15:27:01 <Detlev> q+
15:27:11 <ericvelleman> q?
15:27:16 <Kathy> ack me
15:27:21 <vivienne> zakim, mute me
15:27:21 <Zakim> vivienne should now be muted
15:27:25 <kerstin> Vivienne: if errors will not be fixed -> o compliance
15:28:02 <SarahSwierenga> q+
15:28:05 <agarrison> q+
15:28:30 <Elle> I agree with Vivienne, if errors are identified, they must be accounted in the overall conformance (or lack thereof)
15:28:38 <kerstin> Kathy: we can use a lot of tools, check a lot of website, it wll never be complete. Suggestion: Conformance Claim just for pages we had checked
15:28:40 <Zakim> +Tim_Boland
15:29:01 <lwatson> +1 to Kathy
15:29:07 <Detlev> ack me
15:29:10 <Kathy> mute me
15:29:10 <ericvelleman> q?
15:30:18 <kerstin> Detlev: one way dealing with might be seperating strict conformance and graded accessibility results
15:30:54 <kerstin> Detlev: full conformance will never be happened, need a realistic approach
15:31:13 <Detlev> mute me
15:31:16 <kerstin> Sarah: agree with Kathy
15:31:25 <shadi> zakim, mute detlev
15:31:25 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
15:31:35 <lwatson> q+
15:31:40 <shadi> ack sar
15:32:33 <kerstin> Sarah: suspects that people will claim conformance, and the public will point out problems, purpose of methodology is to identify what is needed for conformance
15:32:44 <ericvelleman> q?
15:32:44 <Detlev> agree
15:33:20 <shadi> ack ag
15:33:46 <kerstin> sorry, I don't understand alistair
15:34:40 <kerstin> agarrison: importance of same results
15:35:06 <kerstin> agarrison: comparison is important
15:35:25 <Detlev> q+
15:36:08 <kerstin> Eric: in the netherlands we check minimum 20 pages, error margin is 5 % 
15:36:54 <Kathy> q+
15:36:56 <kerstin> Eric: to get the logo 10% error margin is allowed, but not for severe barriers, but not always measering in percentages
15:37:00 <shadi> ack lw
15:37:54 <Zakim> -Elle
15:38:27 <kerstin> Leonie: realistic amount of pages in sample is important
15:38:54 <Detlev> ack me
15:38:55 <kerstin> Leonie: acceptable is when out of 20 pages 2 fail
15:39:01 <lwatson> ack me
15:39:13 <kerstin> Detlev: error margin is important
15:39:15 <shadi> regrets+ Vincent
15:39:43 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
15:39:52 <kerstin> Detlev: critical barriers like keybaord traps should not pass
15:40:22 <kerstin> Detlev: what are acceptable errors
15:41:27 <agarrison> Who decides what are acceptable errors - would this lead to a replicable evaluation?
15:41:59 <kerstin> Detlev: in our appproach we have 95%, then is full conformance. more realistic are grades
15:42:02 <Kathy> ack me
15:42:08 <ericvelleman> q?
15:43:02 <kerstin> Kathy: minor things should pass. How is error margin calculated in the NL
15:43:14 <kerstin> Eric: error margin depends on the elements
15:43:39 <agarrison> q+
15:43:48 <kerstin> Eric: if one of 10 has a problem (eg. videos) it will pass
15:44:02 <Elle> apologies, the call signal was bad and I'm only able to stay within IRC (thanks for the scribing!)
15:44:10 <kerstin> Kathy: we also have to talk about frequency
15:44:15 <Kathy> mute me
15:44:23 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
15:44:23 <Zakim> Kathy should now be muted
15:44:48 <vivienne> sounds good to me
15:44:49 <Detlev> not quite
15:45:05 <Detlev> ack me
15:45:08 <kerstin> Eric: Suggestion: there could be minor errors and if so, then we don't give a full conformance
15:45:10 <ericvelleman> q?
15:46:53 <kerstin> Detlev: if there is no error margin possible its from a pratical view not usefull
15:47:25 <lwatson> q+
15:47:32 <shadi> ack ag
15:47:44 <Mike_Elledge> +1
15:48:19 <kerstin> agarrison: points out the replicability of the test
15:49:30 <kerstin> agarrison: difficult to say, that if just 2 pages it pass
15:49:53 <kerstin> agarrison: when tested 20 pages, it's important to go further
15:50:10 <shadi> ack lw
15:50:47 <kerstin> sorry, haven't understood
15:50:48 <ericvelleman> q?
15:51:02 <shadi> q+ to propose dual approach
15:51:39 <Detlev> q+
15:52:05 <shadi> ack me
15:52:06 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to propose dual approach
15:52:07 <kerstin> Leonie and agarrison: discussing the issue that probably interpretations of SCs are not the same. which will be a problem concerning replicacability
15:52:12 <lwatson> ack me
15:52:18 <kerstin> Hope this scribe was correctly
15:52:22 <ericvelleman> q?
15:54:46 <kerstin> Shadi: suggestion: you only claim conform if you conform, possibility. aggregation and documenting what passes and what fails, documenting as process (percentages) for motivating
15:54:52 <shadi> zakim, mute me
15:54:52 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
15:55:21 <shadi> ack me
15:56:43 <kerstin> Shadi: aggregation way could mean different levels, until now not found a really good aggregation method
15:56:43 <Detlev> q-
15:57:07 <kerstin> Shadi: full conformance as primary measure, aggregation as addo
15:57:13 <kerstin> addon
15:57:15 <shadi> zakim, mute me
15:57:15 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
15:57:50 <kerstin> +1
15:58:46 <kerstin> Eric: Starting soon with evaluation, important discussions about reliability, validity - in the next call
15:58:54 <vivienne> ack me
15:58:56 <Detlev> bye
15:58:56 <Kathy> thanks, bye 
15:59:02 <kerstin> Eric: closes the call
15:59:03 <vivienne> vivienne has left #eval
15:59:03 <shadi> ack me
15:59:08 <Zakim> -Tim_Boland
15:59:10 <Zakim> -lwatson
15:59:13 <kerstin> kerstin, unmute me
15:59:18 <Zakim> -Sarah
15:59:28 <Zakim> -agarrison
15:59:32 <Zakim> -Detlev
15:59:36 <Zakim> -Kathy
15:59:42 <Zakim> -Mike.a
15:59:50 <Zakim> -Liz
15:59:52 <Zakim> -ericvelleman
15:59:54 <Zakim> -vivienne
15:59:57 <kerstin> Finish? or do I have to do something?
16:00:06 <Zakim> -Shadi
16:00:27 <kerstin> oki
16:00:31 <kerstin> bye
16:01:19 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Kerstin
16:01:26 <shadi> zakim, drop kerstin
16:01:26 <Zakim> Kerstin is being disconnected
16:01:27 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
16:01:28 <Zakim> Attendees were Shadi, Liz, Kathy, +1.415.692.aaaa, Detlev, ericvelleman, vivienne, Elle, Kerstin, Sarah, +1.248.342.aabb, Mike, agarrison, lwatson, Tim_Boland
16:01:33 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
16:01:33 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:01:33 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:01:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-eval-minutes.html trackbot
16:01:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:01:37 <RRSAgent> I see no action items