IRC log of eval on 2012-03-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:44:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:44:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-eval-irc
14:44:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:44:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eval
14:44:56 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
14:44:56 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
14:44:57 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:44:57 [trackbot]
Date: 15 March 2012
14:45:25 [shadi]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Mar/0030.html
14:45:30 [shadi]
chair: Eric
14:49:04 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #eval
14:51:17 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)11:00AM has now started
14:51:24 [Zakim]
+??P6
14:51:32 [vivienne]
zakim, ??p6 is me
14:51:32 [Zakim]
+vivienne; got it
14:51:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.450.682.aaaa
14:51:50 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
14:51:50 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
14:52:02 [ssirois]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:52:02 [Zakim]
+ssirois; got it
14:54:03 [Zakim]
+ +49.404.318.aabb
14:54:17 [KathyW]
KathyW has joined #eval
14:55:03 [Detlev]
Zakim, aabb is Detlev
14:55:03 [Zakim]
+Detlev; got it
14:55:40 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
14:55:40 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
14:55:44 [Zakim]
+Kathy
14:55:51 [Detlev]
hi
14:56:35 [KathyW]
Zakim, mute me
14:56:35 [Zakim]
sorry, KathyW, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:56:36 [Zakim]
+Shadi
14:57:06 [shadi]
zakim, kathy is Kathyw
14:57:06 [Zakim]
+Kathyw; got it
14:57:11 [ssirois]
zakim, who is on the phone
14:57:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', ssirois
14:57:24 [ssirois]
zakim, who is on phone
14:57:24 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on phone', ssirois
14:57:50 [ssirois]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:57:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see vivienne (muted), ssirois, Detlev (muted), Kathyw, Shadi
14:58:16 [Liz]
Liz has joined #eval
14:59:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.301.975.aacc
14:59:41 [Zakim]
+Don
14:59:53 [shadi]
zakim, aacc is Liz
15:00:08 [Zakim]
+Liz; got it
15:00:32 [Detlev]
I'm fine with scribing
15:00:58 [Detlev]
Zakim, unmute me
15:00:58 [Zakim]
Detlev should no longer be muted
15:01:12 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
15:01:16 [vivienne]
ack me
15:01:20 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has joined #eval
15:01:54 [Zakim]
+Eric_Velleman
15:01:57 [Detlev]
wish you sweet dreams to
15:02:09 [KathyW]
zakim, mute me
15:02:09 [Zakim]
Kathyw should now be muted
15:02:13 [Zakim]
+Sarah
15:02:31 [agarrison]
agarrison has joined #eval
15:02:51 [agarrison]
Hi, going to be a few minutes late ;-(
15:03:31 [ericvelleman]
Hello to you all
15:03:36 [ericvelleman]
Did I get the times in the agenda right?
15:03:50 [ssirois]
zakim, mute me
15:03:50 [Zakim]
ssirois should now be muted
15:03:52 [shadi]
scribe: Detlev
15:04:04 [Zakim]
+??P58
15:04:14 [Detlev]
Eric: introduces agenda
15:04:15 [ssirois]
zakim, what is on the agenda?
15:04:15 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
15:04:23 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:04:23 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:04:36 [ericvelleman]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments
15:04:38 [shadi]
zakim, ??p58 is Kerstin
15:04:38 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
15:04:47 [richard]
richard has joined #eval
15:04:47 [Detlev]
Eric: looking at comments received on WCAG-EM draft
15:05:09 [Kerstin]
Kerstin has joined #eval
15:05:31 [Detlev]
Eric: draft won't be published until comments are addressed
15:05:44 [Kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:05:44 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:05:54 [Detlev]
Shadi: yes go through comments linearly
15:05:56 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:06:10 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller.a]
15:06:26 [Detlev]
Shadi: comments more urgent / interesting for discussion up front
15:07:08 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is Richard
15:07:08 [Zakim]
+Richard; got it
15:07:17 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller.a is Alistair
15:07:17 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
15:07:39 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c48
15:07:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.502.632.aadd
15:07:53 [shadi]
zakim, aadd is Elle
15:07:53 [Zakim]
+Elle; got it
15:08:11 [Detlev]
Eric: Comment 48: setting scope unneccessarily restrictive: discussion
15:08:25 [Tim]
Tim has joined #eval
15:08:28 [KathyW]
Yes , the time was right in the agenda
15:08:57 [Elle]
Elle has joined #eval
15:09:12 [Zakim]
-Elle
15:09:21 [Detlev]
Eric: explains rationale of section 2.1
15:09:32 [Zakim]
+Elle
15:09:32 [richard]
q
15:09:39 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:09:40 [shadi]
q+ richard
15:09:48 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:09:52 [shadi]
ack richard
15:10:50 [Detlev]
Richard: The whole website evaluationm should include everything; you can do parts eparately, but not exclude parts
15:10:57 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:11:21 [Detlev]
Richard: refers to library example that must not be excluded
15:13:04 [shadi]
Detlev: some sites would never meet the requirements without exemption
15:13:24 [shadi]
q+
15:13:43 [shadi]
Eric: relates to partial conformance?
15:13:53 [shadi]
Detlev: not sure, would need to read
15:14:03 [Detlev]
Detlev: reiterartes argument for exceptions
15:14:31 [vivienne]
doesn't partial conformance only apply to part of a page that is third-party?
15:14:33 [Detlev]
Eric: suggests that partial conformance would address the problem
15:14:46 [shadi]
ack me
15:14:49 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:15:16 [Detlev]
Shadi: partial conformance relates to reporting phas, not scoping phase
15:15:35 [agarrison]
100% agree with Shadi
15:15:47 [Detlev]
+q
15:16:13 [Detlev]
Shadi: explains use of parial conformance in reporting phase
15:16:34 [shadi]
ack detlev
15:16:49 [shadi]
Detlev: clients want recognition for their work
15:16:54 [shadi]
...want a seal
15:17:00 [shadi]
q+
15:17:17 [shadi]
...hard to say you will never get there
15:17:23 [Kerstin]
q+
15:17:38 [shadi]
ack me
15:17:56 [Kerstin]
q-
15:18:08 [ssirois]
q+
15:18:09 [Detlev]
Detlev: expands the argument for exceptions for conformance claims
15:18:31 [Kerstin]
agree with shadi
15:18:44 [Detlev]
Shadi: makes an argument for conformance yes/no
15:19:12 [Kerstin]
zakim, mute
15:19:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mute', Kerstin
15:20:22 [Detlev]
Shadi: thinks the issue belongs into the section on reporting
15:20:24 [vivienne]
q+
15:20:41 [ssirois]
ack me
15:20:47 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:22:26 [Detlev]
Samuel: listing each part that may be excempt is harder to understand then a positive statement, thinks current version is fine
15:22:37 [vivienne]
ack me
15:22:41 [ssirois]
zakim, mute me
15:22:41 [Zakim]
ssirois should now be muted
15:24:25 [Detlev]
Vivienne: scope should clearly state what is being evaluated, otherwise it may be fragmented; in reporting, one could explain why the entire website is not conformant, same for 3rd party content
15:24:52 [shadi]
q+ to suggest resolution of adding some notes in the scope section describing the rationale and pointing to the relevant parts in the reporting section
15:25:07 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:25:07 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:25:14 [shadi]
ack me
15:25:14 [Zakim]
shadi, you wanted to suggest resolution of adding some notes in the scope section describing the rationale and pointing to the relevant parts in the reporting section
15:25:19 [Zakim]
-Don
15:25:24 [Detlev]
Vivienne: the methodogy should focus on the whole site because otherwise people would take their pick at will to exclude bits
15:26:10 [Zakim]
+Don
15:26:37 [Detlev]
Shadi: issue closed, comments could moved to reporting section, rationale in scope could be added to clarify that
15:27:48 [agarrison]
q+
15:27:51 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+ sarah
15:27:53 [Elle]
I support that approach
15:27:54 [richard]
+1
15:27:54 [KathyW]
That is good
15:27:57 [vivienne]
+1
15:28:14 [Detlev]
RESOLUTION: issue 48: issue closed, comments could moved to reporting section, rationale in scope could be added to clarify that
15:28:27 [vivienne]
I think we need to be as clear as possible
15:28:37 [Elle]
If we keep it concise, I think a reference to the Reporting section is helpful
15:28:40 [Zakim]
-Don
15:29:07 [Detlev]
Alistair: Maybe additional note unnecessary tzo keep text concise
15:29:08 [Zakim]
+Don
15:30:21 [Kerstin]
probably not forever
15:30:28 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c84
15:30:48 [Detlev]
Next point isuue 84 (Amy Chen)
15:31:28 [Detlev]
Shadi: Since Amy is not formal participant (anymore) issue need not be adressed, but should be, nevertheless
15:31:54 [Detlev]
Shadi: parphrases Amy's point (refer to her comments)
15:31:57 [Zakim]
-Don
15:32:38 [Zakim]
+Don
15:33:41 [ssirois]
q+
15:33:41 [shadi]
[[Exception: The methodology can be applied to clearly separable areas of a single website, such as to the public and restricted area of a website or the front-end and back-end of a web-based tool, provided that this scope matches the evaluation goals and the context of website use; read more in section 3 Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope of the evaluation procedure.]]
15:33:49 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:34:17 [Elle]
+1
15:34:41 [richard]
+1
15:34:46 [vivienne]
+1
15:34:47 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+1
15:34:47 [KathyW]
+1
15:34:48 [shadi]
q- agarrison
15:34:49 [ssirois]
+1
15:34:50 [Detlev]
+1
15:34:54 [agarrison]
+1
15:34:56 [Tim]
+1
15:34:58 [Liz_]
Liz_ has joined #eval
15:35:03 [ssirois]
ack
15:35:08 [shadi]
ack ssirois
15:35:09 [Liz_]
+1 for Liz
15:35:35 [ericvelleman]
those were +1's for keeping exception in section 2.1
15:35:36 [Detlev]
RESOLUTION: issue 84: Keep: The methodology can be applied to clearly separable areas of a single website, such as to the public and restricted area of a website or the front-end and back-end of a web-based tool, provided that this scope matches the evaluation goals and the context of website use; read more in section 3 Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope of the evaluation procedure.
15:35:40 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:35:47 [Kerstin]
+1
15:36:17 [ssirois]
zakim, mute me
15:36:17 [Zakim]
ssirois should now be muted
15:36:27 [Elle]
agreed, +1 with editorial comments
15:36:29 [Detlev]
Samuel: quailfies his +1 the backend front-end issue is addressed
15:37:18 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c20
15:37:47 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c52
15:38:13 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#i2
15:39:23 [Detlev]
Discussion of issues 63 (Loretta), 20 (Kerstin), and 52 (Detlev)
15:39:39 [Kerstin]
q+
15:39:45 [Kerstin]
zakim, unmute me
15:39:45 [Zakim]
Kerstin should no longer be muted
15:39:52 [shadi]
ack kerstin
15:39:59 [Detlev]
Shadi: suggests that issues can be resolved editorially
15:40:24 [Detlev]
Kerstin: not sure, depends on what those edits will be
15:40:46 [Detlev]
Eric: General idea: techniques are not the checkpoints?
15:41:51 [Detlev]
Kerstin: yes, if techniques are marked as optional, there is still the danger that they will used (seen as mandatory), so even optional use is dangerous
15:42:21 [Detlev]
Kerstin: proposes top move mention of techniques from this section to reporting section
15:42:47 [Detlev]
Shadi: could be useful if site owner marks techniques that have been used in implementation
15:43:09 [Detlev]
Kerstin: but then the test refers to techniques
15:43:17 [Detlev]
Shadi sees no problem with this
15:43:17 [agarrison]
I'm 100% for the current text - possibly with a little editorial work
15:43:30 [Detlev]
Eric: suggests rephrasing, publishing to list
15:43:43 [Kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:43:43 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:43:51 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#i3
15:44:18 [Kerstin]
I agree with having a look at the edit
15:44:23 [Detlev]
RESOLUTION issue 63, 20, 52: rephrasing, publishing to list
15:45:39 [Detlev]
Shadi: issue id 54, 55
15:46:12 [ssirois]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#54
15:46:18 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c55
15:47:31 [Detlev]
Detlev paraphrases sampling issue "just to of each"
15:47:35 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306#step2c
15:47:36 [Zakim]
-Liz
15:48:20 [Detlev]
Shadi: Explains the overlap of functions and templates
15:48:39 [Detlev]
Shadi: The more diverse the templates, the wider the sample will get
15:49:07 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:49:34 [Detlev]
RESOLUTION: issue 54, 55: try to clarify editorially misunderstandings and publish to list
15:49:45 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#i4
15:49:52 [vivienne]
q+
15:50:02 [vivienne]
q-
15:50:31 [Detlev]
Shadi: comments on "elemental" web pages, likes Don's suggestion of "common" web pages
15:50:35 [Elle]
+1 for common
15:50:42 [agarrison]
+1 for common
15:50:44 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+1 for "common"
15:50:51 [Detlev]
+1
15:50:54 [KathyW]
+1
15:50:58 [richard]
+1 for common
15:51:07 [vivienne]
+1
15:51:23 [Kerstin]
+1 with description what "common" exactly means
15:51:34 [ssirois]
+1 for elemental, but you shall ignore me if i'm alone! ;) just think elemental sounds more powerfull to my French ears
15:51:36 [vivienne]
26, 43, 47, 81, 25, 27
15:51:50 [Detlev]
RESOLUTION: issue 26: change elemental web pages to common web pages
15:51:57 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#i5
15:51:59 [Elle]
+1
15:52:40 [Detlev]
Shadi: Issue of document incompleteness: several people suggested that one should delay publication
15:52:47 [ssirois]
q+
15:53:22 [agarrison]
+1 for earliest possible publication
15:53:22 [Detlev]
Shadi: there is a risk of misunderstandings if published in incomplete state, but the advantage is getting more public input outside perspectives
15:53:33 [Elle]
+1 for earliest possible publication as well
15:53:57 [vivienne]
q+
15:53:59 [Detlev]
Detlev: withdraws objection to publication
15:54:03 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:54:06 [ssirois]
ack
15:54:11 [shadi]
ack ssirois
15:54:25 [richard]
q+
15:55:14 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:55:14 [Detlev]
Samuel: Thought this discussion would close section 1, 2, 3 and work two more weeks on 4 and 5 before publication
15:55:31 [Detlev]
Samuel: agrees to publish soon
15:55:38 [ssirois]
zakim, mute me
15:55:38 [Zakim]
ssirois should now be muted
15:55:39 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:55:41 [Detlev]
+q
15:55:42 [vivienne]
ack me
15:55:45 [Elle]
so, is the question on whether to wait for 4 and 5 before publication?
15:55:50 [shadi]
ack vivienne
15:56:34 [Elle]
+1 for vivienne's comments
15:56:36 [shadi]
[[there were formal comments to update the abstract and status of the document sections, to clarify the current status]]
15:56:39 [Detlev]
Vivienne: is in favour of publishing as soon as possible, this is work in prgress, we are looking for more input and will get valuable input. Benefits outweight problems
15:56:43 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:56:43 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:57:21 [Detlev]
Shadi: some comments on updating the abstract to make clear where the methodology fits in the big picture
15:57:23 [shadi]
ack richard
15:57:32 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:57:36 [shadi]
zakim, who is making noise?
15:57:46 [Zakim]
shadi, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Detlev (15%), Eric_Velleman (63%), Richard (15%)
15:57:49 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+1 for Vivienne's suggestion that we publish soon
15:57:59 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:58:00 [Detlev]
Richard: Thins the discussion points to a (slight) delay, to put in more content
15:58:27 [agarrison]
Lets move for a resolution on publishing
15:58:45 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:58:54 [shadi]
ack detlev
15:59:23 [Elle]
can we vote on publication?
15:59:24 [Detlev]
Richards: Thinks additional content might prevent misunderstandings of still ill defined issues
16:00:07 [Detlev]
Detlev: is ready to agree to puiblication
16:00:38 [Detlev]
Eric: Thinks it is valuable to get more input for the draft
16:00:42 [agarrison]
+1 publish
16:00:50 [ssirois]
+1 publish
16:00:56 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+1
16:00:57 [Elle]
+1 (with qualifying introductory copy that explains its state, especially 4 and 5)
16:01:01 [vivienne]
+1
16:01:02 [KathyW]
+1
16:01:03 [richard]
-1 do not publish yet
16:02:02 [ericvelleman]
+1 publish
16:02:22 [Detlev]
No resolution to publish right now
16:02:36 [Kerstin]
first want to see the edits before I give my +1
16:02:41 [Elle]
have to go to another meeting, apologies! <exiting call>
16:02:46 [Zakim]
-Elle
16:03:03 [Detlev]
RESOLUTION: group approves publishing priovided that comments are addressed.
16:03:18 [Elle]
+1 for ssirois having the best vocabulary of the call :)
16:03:32 [vivienne]
zakim, unmute me
16:03:32 [Zakim]
vivienne should no longer be muted
16:03:37 [Detlev]
Eric: not all yellow comments were discussed
16:03:49 [Zakim]
-Don
16:04:09 [Detlev]
Shadi: those issues that were not discussed should be resolved on the mailing list
16:04:41 [Detlev]
Shadi: please give input today + tomorrow on outstanding issues, fresh draft early next week.
16:05:04 [Detlev]
Eric: Shadi and Eric will publish frsh version.
16:05:17 [Detlev]
Eric: thanks to all, closes call.
16:05:19 [ssirois]
zakim, unmute me
16:05:19 [Zakim]
ssirois should no longer be muted
16:05:21 [agarrison]
Goodbye ;-)
16:05:23 [Kerstin]
bye
16:05:26 [Zakim]
-ssirois
16:05:28 [Zakim]
-Sarah
16:05:28 [KathyW]
bye
16:05:29 [Zakim]
-Richard
16:05:30 [Zakim]
-Eric_Velleman
16:05:31 [vivienne]
-vivienne
16:05:31 [Sarah_Swierenga]
bye
16:05:31 [Zakim]
-Shadi
16:05:33 [Zakim]
-Alistair
16:05:34 [vivienne]
vivienne has left #eval
16:05:35 [Zakim]
-Detlev
16:05:36 [richard]
quit
16:05:37 [Zakim]
-vivienne
16:05:39 [Zakim]
-Kerstin
16:05:41 [Zakim]
-Kathyw
16:05:43 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)11:00AM has ended
16:05:43 [Zakim]
Attendees were vivienne, +1.450.682.aaaa, ssirois, +49.404.318.aabb, Detlev, Shadi, Kathyw, +1.301.975.aacc, Don, Liz, Eric_Velleman, Sarah, Kerstin, Richard, Alistair,
16:05:47 [Zakim]
... +1.502.632.aadd, Elle
16:48:51 [ssirois]
ssirois has left #eval
18:18:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #eval