See also: IRC log
Eval TF due to meet 29-30 oct at TPAC
shadi: if interested: start booking!
<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/
eric: new questionnaire online, open till
sunday
... if you haven't filled it in yet, do so
<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq2/
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq2/results#x2631
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0124.html
<richard> +1
<ericvelleman> Resolution: Leave this comment for the moment and make no change. When the comments was made, the document looked like this: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5. We will work on that section in more detail in the next editor drafts and will have ample opportunity to discuss this as a group then.
eric: new resolution of DoC 4
<shadi> +1
<korn> +1
+1
<vivienne> +1
<Liz> +1
<ericvelleman> +1
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
Resolution for DoC 4: eave this comment for the moment and make no change. When the comments was made, the document looked like this: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5. We will work on that section in more detail in the next editor drafts and will have ample opportunity to discuss this as a group then.
<ericvelleman> # DoC ID 4 – Change language Resolution:
RESOLUTION: Leave this comment for the moment and make no change. When the comments was made, the document looked like this: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5. We will work on that section in more detail in the next editor drafts and will have ample opportunity to discuss this as a group then.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq2/results#x2621
eric: shadi will suggest new text for resolution DoC ID 7
<ericvelleman> DoC ID 18 – Seems to contradict
<shadi> ACTION: shadi to draft a proposal for new definition of "website part" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/28-eval-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Draft a proposal for new definition of "website part" [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-07-05].
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq2/results#x2630
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0127.html
<ericvelleman> Resolution: Discard this comment. When the comments was made, section 5 was more or less empty except for some editor notes. We will work on that section in more detail in the next editor drafts and will have ample opportunity to discuss this as a group then.
+1
<korn> +1
<shadi> +1
<Liz> +1
<vivienne> +1
<richard> +1
<ericvelleman> +1
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
RESOLUTION: Discard this comment. When the comments was made, section 5 was more or less empty except for some editor notes. We will work on that section in more detail in the next editor drafts and will have ample opportunity to discuss this as a group then.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq2/results#x2613
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0122.html
RESOLUTION: Discard this comment. When the comments was made, section 5 was more or less empty except for some editor notes. We will work on that section in more detail in the next editor drafts and will have ample opportunity to discuss this as a group then.
<ericvelleman> The Resolution would then be: replace "Person who did the evaluation" by "Evaluator".
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<vivienne> +1
<Liz> +1
<richard> +1
+1
<shadi> +1 provided the word "Evaluator" is linked to its definition
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 linking to definition
<Liz> +1 to link to definition
<shadi> scribe: shadi
<richard> +1 lonk to definition
RESOLUTION: replace "Person who did the evaluation" by "Evaluator" and link it to its definition
<ericvelleman> DoC ID 25 – Person or organization
<scribe> scribe: Martijn
<scribe> scribenick: MartijnHoutepen
<ericvelleman> DoC ID 41 – Re-used portions of pages
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq2/results#x2616
<ericvelleman> Step 3 introduction text has a Note that says: “Note: This step identifies a comprehensive sample of web pages that need to be evaluated. However, many web pages will have repetitive content, such as the header, navigation, and other common components that may not need to be re-evaluated on each occurrence. Guidance on evaluating the sample identified in this step is provided in Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample”.
<ericvelleman> Step 4 introduction has an Editor Note that says: “…The introduction will include advice on how to avoid evaluation of repetitive content that would not yield new findings;”
<ericvelleman> New Proposed Resolution: Add in editor note in step 4: “Include this comment for consideration for when we start working on this section ” and no change in step 3 introduction text as it already covers this.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3
richard: links to the existing discussion about templates
<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120523.html
eric: newer version of methodology already
adresses this
... template issue is a different discussion; maybe close this comment
<ericvelleman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-em-comments/2012Apr/0003.html
shadi: we have to be careful; we are evaluating the whole page. This comment adresses evalution efficiency. We musnt open doors to excluding parts
<richard> +1
<richard> NO repeated blocks is not similar areas
peter: add advisory if evaluator notices repeated blocks, make a note
vivienne: We recommend taking a screenshot to identify 'shared areas', chech everything on every page, but not make a remark every time, refer to earlier comment
eric: this is a valuable discussion, but the comment does not adress this issue. We will have this discussion later
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 to respond to the public comment - saying that we are working on it for a future draft.
eric: we can close this issue first, keeping in mind we will have the discussion when we arrive to discussing this specific step
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120523.html#step4
shadi: maybe create a specific editor note asking
for input on how to deal with re-used content
... We adressed this comment.
... If we want more input on this, we can create a specific editor note for
this
<ericvelleman> Proposed resolution: we addressed the comment in the editor note and close it now
<shadi> (1) we have a note in section 3 step 3 relating to that point; (2) we have a related editor note in step 4; (3) we are updating step 4 to refelect this in the upcoming draft
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 to close and add editor note
richard: agree with shadi
<richard> +1
<korn> +1
<vivienne> +1
RESOLUT+1
+1
RESOLUTION: No Change
Rationale: (1) we have a note in section 3 step 3 relating to that point; (2) we have a related editor note in step 4; (3) we are updating step 4 to refelect this in the upcoming draft
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq2/results#x2614
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0098.html
peter: one of the goals of this methodology is sampling, but is not mandatory
eric: rewording: if evaluating all pages is not feasible, take a sample
richard: the majority of websites is quite small, we want to encourage them to evaluate a11y themselves. As a starting position: evaluate the whole site
mike: agree with Richard, in ideal circumstances every page will be tested, but that isnt feasible
vivienne: most of the people who will want their website evaluated, will be large websites. The majority of websites that are evaluated, are larger. No problem with suggestion to put the whole website first
<shadi> [[1. Introduction - Because it is generally not feasible nor desired to evaluate every single web page in such a context, it is essential to employ a reliable method for determining the overall conformance of a website -> In many situations it is not possible to evaluate every single web page, so that it is essential to...]]
richard: difference between commercial business and target user of our methodology. The more people that use this methodology the better
shadi: we need to make sure our methodology
scales up and down.
... in the introduction we already mention this issue
<vivienne> +1 to Shadi's idea of new wording
<korn> +1
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<ericvelleman> +1
<richard> +1
<Mike_Elledge> !
shadi: suggestion to add a note; if you have the resources to evaluate every page, consider it your sample
+1
<Liz> +1
<shadi> ACTION: shadi to go through methodology and propose wording changes to better address the possibility to evaluate all pages, if the evaluator is willing to do so [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/28-eval-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Go through methodology and propose wording changes to better address the possibility to evaluate all pages, if the evaluator is willing to do so [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-07-05].
eric: two proposals by shadi to look forward to