See also: IRC log
SH: anything from other WAI groups?
SAZ: no responses for a week now
... should reping them but proceed, assuming there are no objections
SH: can drop copyright issue for now, if people
agree
... just on the pre-call
<Peter> Yup, sounds good Simon (to me)
SH: then discuss later
<markel> fine to me
<giorgio> good fo me
SH: sound ok?
RESOLUTION: drop copyright policy clause from the pre-call and rediscuss before the main announcement
<Peter> +1 (changes :)
SH: people agree with Yeliz's comments?
... more discussion needed?
GB: have another version with the changes
... hope to close today
... then will circulate updated version
SH: main issue seems to be about section 3.7
MV: most of section 3 describes the papers while 3.7 describes the discussion
SH: could change the title to something like "concluding remarks" to clarify the content
[[3.7 Questions]]
<sharper> +1
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to request a pedantic change (different point)
SAZ: propose to continue using the term "website
accessibility metrics" rather than "web accessibility metrics"
... to reflect that we only mean metrics for websites rather than web
accessibility
... which would need other metrics in addition to websites
MV: think capital "Web" (rather "web") would
denote all aspects of the web
... most papers talked about indiivdual pages
GB: what is the risk of saying "web accessibility metrics"?
SAZ: frequent myth that web content accessibility
is all of accessibility
... need to reiterate where we can that we understand this aspect
GB: not sure we want to confine ourselves to web content only
<markel> to me "website" has a different connotation
GB: also not sure that we are only discussing web content
<markel> if we say "website accessibility metrics" its metrics for the WHOLE website
<markel> and single web pages are left out
SAZ: how about a brief section to describe this scope?
GB: is it necessary?
SAZ: I think so, often misunderstanding that "web accessibility" is "web content" only
GB: what do others think?
SH: ok with me
<Peter_Thiessen> +1 (behavior for example is often not included in people
<Peter_Thiessen> 's assumptions about what web accessibility is)
MV: ok with me but not sure addresses the issue that shadi is talking about
<Peter_Thiessen> (behavior = browser events and user events :)
SH: agree with trying a sentence or so to clarify that
<Peter_Thiessen> +1
[[Secondly, we wanted to know whether accessibility metrics ...]]
[[4. A Research Roadmap for Web Accessibility Metrics]]
<Peter_Thiessen> (Sadly have to run to a meeting :( best of luck finishing up and have a great week - cheers)
SAZ: sentence could fit here but editors discretion
[[4.1 Ensuring Metric Quality]]
+1
<sharper> +1
[[4.1.2 Reliability]]
<sharper> +1
[[4.1.3 Sensitivity]]
SH: less "meat" on section 4.1.3 and 4.1.4
... is it because less input from the webinar or other reasons?
GB: think validity and reliability more
important
... also more references to discuss
SH: could clarify that there is less work
there
... but not imply that they are less important
<giorgio> GOOD POINT sHADI.
SAZ: (1) agree that lack of discussion is an
important point to message in the document
... (2) consider putting the two last items into one section like "other
considerations"
... (3) seems to be missing "complexity" aspect too
... (4) in 4.1.3 we are mixing "website testing" and "web accessibility"
MV: agree
<giorgio> ok
MV: we specifically looked at reliability and validity more
SH: need to be upfront about it
... and highlight these aspects
[[4.2 A Corpus for Metrics Benchmarking]]
SAZ: agree with the paragraph
... sent comments to the editors with additional references for
considerations
MV: already in new version, useful references
[[4.3 Credibility issues]]
MV: raised by Annika on the panel
... also Shadi provided some comments
... think it is important point with several issues
... maybe need to expand
... need more input
SH: related to how we frame it
... could go into 4.2
SAZ: agree with putting in 4.2
... also agree that it is very important very delicate
... especially policy makers love numbers even if no one knows what they
mean
MV: understand credibility as a side topic of
validity and reliability
... so agree with considering putting it in section 4.2
<markel> i meant side-effect
GB: need to think more about the relationship to
other items in 4.2
... occurs to me we did not explain Annika's point well
... need to clarify point more clearly
MV: relates to reliability, no?
GB: yes, low validity in tools related to low credibility
[[4.4.1 User-tailored metrics]]
+1
<sharper> +1
<markel> that's doable
[[4.4.2 Dealing with dynamic content]]
GB: maybe could talk about WAI-ARIA and ask for more explorations in this aspect
<markel> good idea Giorgio +1
SAZ: seems to talk about two aspects of
"dynamic"
... interactivity of scripting/interaction/etc
<markel> yes
<giorgio> YES
SAZ: and changes over time (such as wiki etc)
[[Conclusions]]
SAZ: think it doesn't do the document justice
... so much good content in the document
... may need to reflect the discussion more in the conclusion
MV: agree with Shadi
<giorgio> ME TOO
SH: some open issues on section 3.7 and other
sections
... can do it next week?
MV: yes
SH: will put on the agenda for next week
... only to discuss these parts
... then put into a new draft for group review
MV: suggest to include the other changes discussed so far
SH: since substantial changes, please highlight them
SAZ: usually have an appendix called "document changes" or such
<markel> I agree with GB
SAZ: please send me HTML and I can cross-link the two versions
GB: how about work with open office comments?
... for this round before publishing first editor draft
SAZ: fine, as long as no accessibility constraints
<giorgio> you are welcome Simon
MV: question from shadi about credits
<giorgio> we added the following stuff:
<giorgio> Some excerpts of this document are extracted from an initial brainstorming document at http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Benchmarking_Web_Accessibility_Metrics where a number of members of the RDWG helped to populate. We are therefore grateful to Shadi Abou-Zahra, Mario Batusic, Simon Harper, Shawn Lawton Henry, Rui Lopes, Máté Pataki, Peter Thiessen and Yeliz Yesilada.
SAZ: this is sufficient for now
... can also think about a contributors section