See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 February 2012
group working on logistics - gaining access to the spreadsheet
<jeanne> Jeanne notes that the spreadsheet is in Google docs for collaborative purposes and snapshots of it will be moved to public space.
js: this is based on the previous
... we discussed levels last week. Kim and Jeanne reviewed. Looking a issues from user side (severity of the issue), how many functional requirements are met
... also looking from vendor side, how feasible, how deterministic, and where implemented (browser and extensions)
... thanks to greg for the extraction script, to make the spreadsheet
... Col A-D from the draft. E is Score, F-M user barriers, N-Q vendor
g: no mouse - includes blind user
gl: speech user, would be in F,
G, and H, may inflate score...some disabilites may
disproportionally impact score.
... skeptical at the moment about the whole scoring mechanism.
... one type of disability is absolutely blocked will get a 5, if some other SC inconveniences a group of users...their score may outweigh the 5
kp: 5 is a show stopper, and gets a flag.
wd: these numbers will give us a qualitative view of whats going on in the SC. need to start somewhere. then it becomes judgement
gl: we are reinventing the wheel. in other sciences there are documented methods for doing this kind of thing, but we are not knowledgeable.
kp: we are 'experts' in our area, this is a way to get shared knowledge on the page, base on our judgements and experiences.
gl: score has 2 columns (average and high), if a 5 in high, then average is 5 regardless of other scores in other columns.
kf: use as a starting
... useful to winnow the A to a more reasonable number.
<scribe> scribe: jallan
<kford> WD: We have this problem universally in disability studies. The field lacks precise research on the impact of various barries and exact strategies for removal.
<kford> WD: In ways we are about as good as we can get.
sh: explains how rubrics used in the university. what we are looking at is anecdotal, don't have real studies to back up our opinions
<kford> WD: One of the things we are trying to do is make a standard in the absence of the level of info you get in clinical trials and such.
SH: getting more systematic is a good thing.
<kford> SH: Yes, I agrree. But don't get to hung about on the method.
<kford> SH: We can modify the system if we find it to be incorrect. Get on with doing it and see if we agree. if we don't, we can modify.
<Greg> From Wikipedia: "An actuary is a business professional who deals with the financial impact of risk and uncertainty... Actuaries mathematically evaluate the likelihood of events and quantify the contingent outcomes in order to minimize losses, both emotional and financial, associated with uncertain undesirable events."
<kford> SH: We know something that are correct will emerge and we can go forward in revising.
<kford> JS: My major objective was to be transparent and give outsiders an idea of how the levels were arrived at for each criteria.
<kford> JA: The other thing that struck me was that a lot have impact on mobile devices, like no keyboard, no mouse.
<kford> KP: Yes.
<kford> WD: I was noticing that the categories were like no screen, no mouse. If you have limited of these but not total absence do you rank lower?
<kford> KP: no. And we should ask if there are any missing categories.
<kford> WD: Thge dependency on audio as well as visual is important for cognative and visual disabilities.
<kford> WD: Goes over scenarios where these populations use various modes.
<kford> JA: Having limited screen would be good.
<kford> Folks go over categories in more detail.
<kford> GL: Could we add some examples.
<kford> KFord: If we distribute outside the group agree that we define and give examples.
<kford> JS: Going to go through examples.
<kford> See spreadsheet for ratings.
<kford> JS going over 1.1.
<kford> For sign language thought this was a 5 becuase if sign language track existed, would be critical for user to see. Same for audio.
<kford> Group going over limited audio definition.
<kford> KP: Hopefully if you pick any kind of user at all, be it a regular user on a noisy subway or someone with a disability you can use this to help assess.
<kford> GL: Can we add comments or another row here to add some explanations.
<kford> Group talks a bit more about doc structure.
<kford> Group talking more about document and columns and such.
<jeanne> ACTION: Wayne to write an executive summary. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-ua-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-713 - Write an executive summary. [on Wayne Dick - due 2012-02-16].
<jeanne> edit action-713 Write an executive summary of the UAAG-Mobile wiki report http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Applying_UAAG_to_Mobile_Phones
<kford> Group talking about how to get progress on mobile doc.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/gorup/group/ Found Scribe: jallan Inferring ScribeNick: JAllan Default Present: Jim_Allan, Jeanne, Greg_Lowney, +1.562.256.aaaa, Wayne, Kim_Patch, sharper, [Microsoft] Present: Jim Kim Simon Wayne Kelly Greg Jeanne Regrets: Mark Found Date: 09 Feb 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-ua-minutes.html People with action items: wayne[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]