IRC log of eval on 2012-07-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:58:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
13:58:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/07/05-eval-irc
13:58:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:58:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
13:58:19 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
13:58:20 [trackbot]
Date: 05 July 2012
13:58:27 [shadi]
zakim, this is eval
13:58:27 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; that matches WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM
13:58:35 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
13:58:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kathy
13:58:57 [shadi]
zakim, call shadi-617
13:58:57 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; the call is being made
13:58:58 [Zakim]
+Shadi
13:58:58 [Zakim]
+Detlev
13:59:27 [MartijnHoutepen]
MartijnHoutepen has joined #eval
13:59:49 [ericvelleman]
Eric is also here
14:00:01 [shadi]
on the phone?
14:00:08 [ericvelleman]
just a moment
14:00:11 [shadi]
ah!
14:00:21 [shadi]
only counts when you are actually on the call ;)
14:00:49 [MoeKraft]
MoeKraft has joined #eval
14:00:53 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
14:01:11 [shadi]
scribe: Detlev
14:01:11 [Zakim]
+MartijnHoutepen
14:01:14 [Zakim]
+MartijnHoutepen.a
14:01:34 [ericvelleman]
On the phone now
14:02:02 [Zakim]
+Sarah_Swierenga
14:02:05 [Zakim]
+MoeKraft
14:02:09 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
14:02:09 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
14:02:20 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
14:02:20 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
14:02:37 [Zakim]
-MartijnHoutepen
14:02:48 [Detlev]
Zakim, unmute me
14:02:48 [Zakim]
Detlev should no longer be muted
14:02:50 [shadi]
zakim, MartijnHoutepen.a is Eric
14:02:52 [Zakim]
+Eric; got it
14:03:06 [ericvelleman]
This is me, test, Eric
14:03:10 [Zakim]
+Eric.a
14:03:17 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, Eric.a is me
14:03:17 [Zakim]
+MartijnHoutepen; got it
14:03:19 [Sarah_Swierenga]
hello everyone
14:03:31 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
14:03:31 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
14:03:47 [korn]
korn has joined #eval
14:03:58 [Detlev]
Eric kicks off
14:03:58 [shadi]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jul/0008.html
14:04:44 [Detlev]
How do we ount in agenda items?
14:05:17 [Detlev]
Eric: agenda tems agreed by all were closed
14:05:35 [shadi]
agenda+ Questionnaire
14:05:35 [shadi]
agenda+ Open issues for this Telco
14:05:35 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 3 – Use stronger language - CLOSED
14:05:35 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 6 (wrongly named 7 in earlier discussion)– Definition of “website part”
14:05:35 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 7 – Clarify relation between goals and tool use – CLOSED
14:05:36 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 8 – User involvement
14:05:38 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 9 - implicit/interpretable-from-reading
14:05:39 [Detlev]
Eric: some issues remain open, let's work through them
14:05:40 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 10 – Unstable techniques
14:05:42 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 24 – Typo auxillary – CLOSED (change to auxiliary :-)
14:05:44 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 26: Appendix C more examples
14:05:46 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 29 – Sort of errors
14:05:48 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 31 – Template information
14:05:50 [shadi]
agenda+ Other issues
14:05:52 [shadi]
zakim, clear agenda
14:06:06 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:06:18 [shadi]
agenda+ Questionnaire
14:06:18 [shadi]
agenda+ Open issues for this Telco
14:06:18 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 3 – Use stronger language - CLOSED
14:06:18 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 6 (wrongly named 7 in earlier discussion)– Definition of “website part”
14:06:18 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 7 – Clarify relation between goals and tool use – CLOSED
14:06:18 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 8 – User involvement
14:06:20 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 9 - implicit/interpretable-from-reading
14:06:22 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 10 – Unstable techniques
14:06:24 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 24 – Typo auxillary – CLOSED (change to auxiliary :-)
14:06:26 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 26: Appendix C more examples
14:06:29 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:06:30 [Detlev]
tnx Shadi
14:06:30 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 29 – Sort of errors
14:06:32 [shadi]
agenda+ DoC ID 31 – Template information
14:06:34 [shadi]
agenda+ Other issues
14:06:48 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 1
14:06:48 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Questionnaire" taken up [from shadi]
14:06:52 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:06:52 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
14:06:54 [shadi]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results
14:07:04 [Detlev]
Eric: states no further questions about questionnaires so far
14:07:24 [Detlev]
Eric. Questionnaire 4 will be lengthy, 16-20 questions
14:07:25 [Zakim]
+Peter_Korn
14:07:34 [Detlev]
Eric: use holiday to look over it
14:07:43 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:07:43 [Zakim]
agendum 1 was just opened, shadi
14:07:50 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:07:50 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Open issues for this Telco" taken up [from shadi]
14:08:05 [shadi]
zakim drop agendum 2
14:08:10 [shadi]
zakim, drop agendum 2
14:08:10 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Open issues for this Telco, dropped
14:08:13 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:08:13 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "DoC ID 3 – Use stronger language - CLOSED" taken up [from shadi]
14:08:20 [Detlev]
Eric: item ID6 / ID7 "Definition of website part"
14:08:30 [shadi]
zakim, close agendum 3
14:08:30 [Zakim]
agendum 3, DoC ID 3 – Use stronger language - CLOSED, closed
14:08:31 [Zakim]
I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:08:31 [Zakim]
4. DoC ID 6 (wrongly named 7 in earlier discussion)– Definition of “website part” [from shadi]
14:08:34 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:08:37 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "DoC ID 6 (wrongly named 7 in earlier discussion)– Definition of “website part”" taken up [from shadi]
14:08:38 [Detlev]
Eric: Shadi sent a new text proposal (reads it out)
14:08:47 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:08:47 [Zakim]
Shadi was already muted, shadi
14:09:09 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:09:15 [shadi]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0154.html
14:09:21 [Detlev]
Eric: asks if there is agreement on the proposal by Shadi
14:09:25 [Detlev]
fine
14:09:26 [ericvelleman]
# DoC ID 6 (wrongly named 7 in earlier discussion)– Definition of “website part”
14:09:41 [ericvelleman]
Resolution: Change to: “A set of web pages within a website that together provide common use or functionality. In some cases website parts may have their own design, navigation, and web addresses. In some cases website parts may not be directly managed by the website owners.”
14:09:46 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+1 common use or functionality
14:09:49 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1
14:09:52 [shadi]
ack me
14:09:52 [Detlev]
fine
14:10:03 [Kathy]
+1 - common use may need further definition
14:10:30 [Detlev]
Shadi: extra paragraph may make definition a bit too long
14:10:38 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:10:38 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
14:10:45 [Sarah_Swierenga]
i like keeping the extra paragraph with examples here
14:10:46 [Detlev]
Eric: consider options for moving it
14:10:51 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:10:55 [korn]
q+
14:10:56 [shadi]
ack me
14:10:57 [Kathy]
q+
14:11:00 [Detlev]
Eric: anyone disagrees? Seems not...
14:11:02 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:11:02 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
14:11:33 [Detlev]
Peter: Consider how that would play in the context of a web application
14:11:38 [shadi]
ack me
14:12:31 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
14:13:13 [Detlev]
Shadi: no immediate answer - for the context in which it is being used it mighr be OK - may be not ideal for web apps so we would need a way to map "wep page" on the context of web apps
14:14:16 [Detlev]
Shadi: what issues do you see, Peter? Website part may resemble website area - web apps more difficult to separate..
14:14:21 [Kathy]
ack me
14:14:24 [shadi]
ack korn
14:15:16 [Detlev]
Peter: Difficult to give an example for part of web app that shares the same URL - no immeadiate example
14:15:35 [Detlev]
Eric: keep in mind for future work
14:15:48 [MoeKraft]
q+
14:16:07 [Detlev]
Kathy: example - we may need to define what comman usages for web aps are ok
14:16:49 [Detlev]
kathy: Example of components brought onto other pages, but avaliable also elsewhere - gets more difficult in web apps
14:17:06 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:17:13 [Detlev]
Kathy: Some of that might need to be reviewed separately
14:17:17 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#website
14:17:50 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
14:17:50 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
14:17:51 [Detlev]
Shadi: Does the issue also affect the definirtion of 'web site'?
14:17:53 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:17:56 [Detlev]
kathy: Yes
14:18:52 [Detlev]
Moe: How would a portlet be defined - not a web page, more a self contained unit embedded on pages - test teams have difficult to define responsibilities, differentiate between container and portlet content
14:18:59 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:19:09 [Zakim]
+Mike
14:19:31 [Detlev]
Shadi: Reason to define website parts is really to support selectino of scope on evaluation
14:19:49 [korn]
q+
14:19:50 [Kathy]
q+
14:20:06 [Detlev]
Shadi: If evaluation of portal is the aim, all associated components would need to be included in that.
14:20:36 [Detlev]
Shadi: so the context is embedded / aggregate content - is that what you are after?
14:20:55 [korn]
q-
14:21:11 [MoeKraft]
q-
14:21:12 [Kathy]
ack me
14:21:15 [Detlev]
Moe: Portlets get developed on its own - often a lack of communication between responsibilities fort portlet and containing site
14:21:33 [shadi]
s/fort/for
14:22:03 [Detlev]
Kathy: for apps there is the framework and then the content - is there a waay to incorporate the distinctino between both?
14:22:33 [korn]
q+
14:23:10 [Tim]
Tim has joined #eval
14:23:15 [Detlev]
Shadi: From the perspective of the claim: if you focus on just one aspect such as a portal that is fine, but if you want to make a claim about the application all other things need to be included
14:23:42 [Detlev]
Shadi: the question os if we do partial evaluatinos, can tzhe be aggregsated if al is covered?
14:24:51 [Detlev]
kathy: in educatonal framework, you have one frame for courses and then individual courses / content - woudl make sense to be able to evaluate the tow independently (for efficientcy)
14:25:06 [Detlev]
Shadi: You probably would not be able to separate both
14:26:03 [Detlev]
Shadi: If the framework was evaluated at the outset, what else do I need to evaluate in addtion? WCAG-EM probably does not cove rthat (yet?)
14:26:15 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
14:26:15 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
14:26:55 [shadi]
q+
14:26:56 [Detlev]
Peter: Core of the challenge is "set of pages within the website" - may be change to change to area within website
14:26:59 [shadi]
ack k
14:27:09 [shadi]
zakim, mute kathy
14:27:09 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
14:28:22 [Detlev]
Peter: in an ideal scenario you may have a course that may not excersise all aspects defined in the framework - a dummy aplication may, however, to be tested comprehensively
14:28:49 [korn]
q-
14:28:56 [Detlev]
Peter: so ypu may not need to review every course individually, but there are issues, of course
14:29:04 [shadi]
ack me
14:30:45 [Detlev]
Shadi: wondering if an evaluator would need to populate dummy content - its probably a different discussion. If you want to evauate a specific courseware, a general statement such as "framework proven accessible" would not been sufficient
14:31:13 [Detlev]
Shadi: will revise definition to addres web application issues
14:32:12 [Detlev]
Eric: thinks definition is already wel received and may stay weit han additional editor note about the issues raised?
14:33:23 [Detlev]
Shadi: add note about applicability tzo web apps, portals etc - refers to WCAG ICT that looks at extending WCAG tzo non-web content
14:33:29 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:33:29 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
14:33:44 [Detlev]
q+
14:33:44 [shadi]
s/WCAG ICT/WCAG2ICT
14:33:52 [shadi]
ack me
14:34:51 [Detlev]
Shadi: will think about note on web apps, aggregated content, would appreciate input from others via list
14:35:02 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:35:02 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
14:35:11 [Detlev]
Eric: will come up later, too
14:36:13 [shadi]
action: shadi to look at refining updated definition of "website part"
14:36:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-3 - Look at refining updated definition of "website part" [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-07-12].
14:37:14 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
14:38:03 [Detlev]
Detlev: Peter, Moe Kathy may provide input how WCAG-EM might be modified to bve useful for evaluating weeb aps
14:38:29 [Detlev]
Eric: separate issue from comments we are addresing
14:38:39 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:38:42 [Detlev]
Eric: Good to start that discussion on the lisdt
14:38:53 [shadi]
q- detlev
14:38:56 [korn]
q+
14:39:32 [MoeKraft]
q+
14:39:38 [korn]
q-
14:39:40 [shadi]
q- korn
14:39:42 [Kathy]
q+
14:39:46 [Detlev]
Peter: will attempt to review and add input - many othe rburning issues so not much time righ rtnow for that
14:39:53 [shadi]
ack moe
14:40:09 [MoeKraft]
q-
14:40:12 [Detlev]
Kathy: happy to add to that discussion (reg, Portlet evaluation etc)
14:40:15 [Kathy]
ack me
14:40:23 [shadi]
ack me
14:41:11 [Detlev]
Was tzhat Moe makinh the statement earlier that she is happy to contribute tzo discussion on portlet evaluation?
14:41:31 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
14:41:31 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
14:41:33 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:41:33 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
14:41:39 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:41:39 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "DoC ID 7 – Clarify relation between goals and tool use – CLOSED" taken up [from shadi]
14:42:04 [Detlev]
Eric: closed with remark that it will be addressed later
14:42:09 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+1
14:42:17 [shadi]
zakim, close agendum 5
14:42:17 [Zakim]
agendum 5, DoC ID 7 – Clarify relation between goals and tool use – CLOSED, closed
14:42:19 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:42:20 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:42:20 [Zakim]
6. DoC ID 8 – User involvement [from shadi]
14:42:20 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "DoC ID 8 – User involvement" taken up [from shadi]
14:42:42 [Detlev]
Eric ID8: user involvement - no change to proposed resolution
14:42:53 [korn]
+1
14:42:56 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1
14:42:57 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+1
14:42:59 [shadi]
q+
14:42:59 [Detlev]
fine
14:43:11 [shadi]
ack me
14:43:18 [shadi]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results#x2620
14:43:53 [shadi]
[[The clarity is already provided in this section. Involving users is optional, but is strongly recommended. The section provides a link to the W3C/WAI evaluation suite for more explanation.]]
14:43:57 [Detlev]
Shadi: Different rationale in questionnaire, more appropriate and better thsan current resolution
14:44:24 [korn]
q+
14:45:19 [Detlev]
Peter: Agrees that there is enough in the draft
14:45:34 [Detlev]
soory
14:46:38 [Detlev]
Peter: What was meant was it is not necessary to get back to reviewer specifically - just point to futurwe discussion ahead..
14:46:44 [shadi]
q- korn
14:46:47 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:46:47 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "DoC ID 9 - implicit/interpretable-from-reading" taken up [from shadi]
14:46:52 [Detlev]
Hope that nails it, Peter?
14:47:08 [shadi]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results#x2586
14:47:44 [ericvelleman]
DoC ID 9 - implicit/interpretable-from-reading
14:47:48 [Detlev]
Eric: ID9 Resolution that secton will need to be rewritten
14:47:52 [ericvelleman]
New Proposed Resolution: We will need to rewrite this section to avoid misconceptions New Rationale: What we meant is the primary target audience and the context of use (public website vs intranet etc.). This section needs to be rewritten to avoid these misconceptions that have occurred.
14:48:40 [shadi]
q+
14:48:47 [shadi]
ack me
14:49:02 [Detlev]
Eric: has updated resolution with input from Shadi in questionnaire
14:49:16 [korn]
q+
14:49:26 [Detlev]
Shadi: we cannot close this issue before updating the section
14:50:02 [Detlev]
Eric: rewrite in sepatrate documents and then disucssion makes process quite complex
14:50:30 [Detlev]
Shadi: Reply to commenter is: will be adressed in next version
14:51:17 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:51:24 [Detlev]
Eric: Q is can we keep things opein in Disosition of comments and clos in issue list?
14:51:30 [Detlev]
Shadi: Up to you Eric
14:51:55 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:51:55 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
14:52:43 [shadi]
+1 to Peter's suggestion
14:52:45 [MoeKraft]
+1
14:52:48 [Detlev]
Peter: Process comment: given the many difficult parts it would be helpfulö to include hyperlinks to sections within draft
14:52:55 [shadi]
q- korn
14:53:39 [Detlev]
Eric: ID 10 - Unstable techniques
14:53:42 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:53:42 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "DoC ID 10 – Unstable techniques" taken up [from shadi]
14:53:44 [shadi]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results#x2613
14:54:08 [Detlev]
Eric: comments suggest no change
14:54:40 [Detlev]
Eric: this should be addressed by WCAG WG, not our issue, but not clear for every one
14:55:01 [ericvelleman]
Proposed Resolution: We may not be able to address this issue in the next draft but will add in the editor note for section 3.4 that says: “EvalTF will attempt to provide clearer guidance on using Sufficient/Failure Techniques in practice in later drafts”. Also we will start a dialog with WCAG WG on this issue.
14:55:04 [Detlev]
Eric: Editor note on advice using Sufficient Techniques in later drafts
14:55:23 [Detlev]
Reaction to that?
14:55:25 [shadi]
ack me
14:55:57 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120523.html#step4
14:56:00 [Detlev]
Shadi: (looks at editor draft) - Eric strated filling out the section
14:56:48 [Sarah_Swierenga]
we want to close comments too!
14:56:55 [Detlev]
Eric: put in editor note, code comment
14:57:02 [Detlev]
close comment
14:57:39 [Detlev]
Shadi: Response to commenter could be yes being considered in upcoming draft
14:57:59 [Detlev]
Shadi: Detlev's statements for next questionnairw
14:58:14 [Detlev]
Eric: everyone agrees with closing comment
14:58:53 [Detlev]
Shadi: Best process: Identify what evaluator needs, and get WCAG WG to update information on that
14:59:25 [Detlev]
Shadi: we can collect what the issues are, and provide input to WCAG WG
14:59:27 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
14:59:27 [Zakim]
agendum 9. "DoC ID 24 – Typo auxillary – CLOSED (change to auxiliary :-)" taken up [from shadi]
14:59:47 [Detlev]
Eric: change made, comment closed
15:00:07 [Detlev]
I´ll be on vacation too
15:00:36 [Detlev]
Eric: give more time for next questionnaire over the next two weeks
15:00:58 [MartijnHoutepen]
26th
15:01:13 [Detlev]
Next meeting in three weeks (Thursday of 26 of July)
15:01:22 [Detlev]
Lets have discussion on the list
15:01:53 [Detlev]
Eric: will provide new editor draft a few days before 26. July
15:01:54 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, unmute me
15:01:54 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should no longer be muted
15:01:56 [Zakim]
-Peter_Korn
15:02:03 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
15:02:05 [Detlev]
Eric: thanks everyone, closes cal
15:02:06 [Kathy]
thanks bye
15:02:09 [Zakim]
-Mike
15:02:10 [Detlev]
bye!
15:02:11 [Zakim]
-MartijnHoutepen
15:02:12 [Zakim]
-Shadi
15:02:13 [Zakim]
-Eric
15:02:15 [Zakim]
-MoeKraft
15:02:17 [Zakim]
-Kathy
15:02:34 [Zakim]
-Detlev
15:02:40 [Zakim]
-Sarah_Swierenga
15:02:42 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
15:02:42 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.978.443.aaaa, Kathy, Shadi, Detlev, MartijnHoutepen, Sarah_Swierenga, MoeKraft, Eric, Peter_Korn, Mike, Tim_Boland
15:02:59 [Detlev]
will you take cae of generating the minutes?
15:03:16 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has left #eval
17:21:58 [korn]
korn has left #eval