13:47:57 RRSAgent has joined #eval 13:47:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/30-eval-irc 13:47:59 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:47:59 Zakim has joined #eval 13:48:01 Zakim, this will be 3825 13:48:01 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes 13:48:02 Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference 13:48:02 Date: 30 August 2012 13:49:33 MartijnHoutepen has joined #eval 13:53:28 regrets: Tim, Alistair, Moe 13:53:32 chair: Eric 13:55:45 Detlev has joined #eval 13:56:41 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started 13:56:48 +Shadi 13:57:45 Liz has joined #eval 13:58:45 + +1.248.342.aaaa 13:59:17 zakim, aaaa is Mike 13:59:17 +Mike; got it 13:59:40 +Detlev 13:59:41 +Liz 13:59:50 +MartijnHoutepen 14:00:05 Zakim, mute me 14:00:05 Detlev should now be muted 14:00:15 Kathy has joined #eval 14:00:31 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0101.html 14:01:11 Zakim, mute me 14:01:11 MartijnHoutepen should now be muted 14:01:15 korn has joined #eval 14:01:34 ack me 14:01:38 ericvelleman has joined #eval 14:01:42 +Kathy_Wahlbin 14:01:47 vivienne has joined #eval 14:01:57 Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval 14:02:08 zakim, mute me 14:02:08 MartijnHoutepen should now be muted 14:02:20 agenda+ Eval TF Comment #24 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c24 14:02:25 zakim, mute me 14:02:25 Kathy_Wahlbin should now be muted 14:02:26 agenda+ Eval TF Comment #29 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c29 14:02:33 +Sarah_Swierenga 14:02:36 agenda+ Eval TF Comment #32 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32 14:02:52 +??P37 14:02:57 zakim, ??P37 is me 14:02:59 +vivienne; got it 14:03:03 +ericvelleman 14:03:15 +[IPcaller] 14:03:27 agenda+ WCAG WG Comment #5 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c5 14:03:55 agenda+ WCAG WG Comments #7 and #12 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c7 and http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c12 14:04:02 agenda+ WCAG WG Comment #13 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c13 14:04:05 agenda? 14:04:06 Kerstin has joined #eval 14:04:52 zakim, ipcaller is Kerstin 14:04:52 +Kerstin; got it 14:05:03 scribe: Kerstin 14:05:10 zakim, mute me 14:05:10 Kerstin should now be muted 14:06:08 +Peter_Korn 14:06:18 Eric: Welcome everyone 14:06:18 q? 14:06:21 sound fine 14:06:21 Topic: Summary of Open Comments 14:06:21 fine 14:08:04 q+ 14:08:10 q? 14:08:30 Shadi: Has everyone looked at the comments? 14:08:44 q+ 14:08:50 who was speaking? 14:08:56 q- 14:10:16 Shadi: WCAG WG will discuss the comments of the WG, everyone is welcome 14:10:26 q- korn 14:10:30 zakim, take up next 14:10:30 agendum 1. "Eval TF Comment #24 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c24" taken up [from shadi] 14:11:05 fine 14:11:09 fine 14:11:14 Eric: changing resolution in 24 14:11:31 +1 14:11:37 q+ 14:11:42 ack me 14:11:42 Change often in usually? 14:11:54 change usually into often 14:12:08 Vivienne: is usually correct? 14:13:27 Discussion between Peter and Vivienne upon 'usually' and 'often' 14:13:41 q? 14:13:43 zakim, mute me 14:13:43 vivienne should now be muted 14:13:46 fine 14:13:50 okay with me 14:13:56 Eric: propose to close, change into often and wait for comments 14:13:58 zakim, take up next 14:13:58 agendum 2. "Eval TF Comment #29 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c29" taken up [from shadi] 14:14:40 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827#step1e 14:14:55 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827#step4b 14:15:17 q+ 14:15:39 -Kerstin 14:15:50 https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120730&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120827 14:15:58 ack me 14:16:45 DF: not clear what Step 1e means in practice 14:17:18 q+ 14:17:21 ...where to start and where to stop 14:17:22 ack me 14:17:30 q? 14:17:37 VC: confuses me as well 14:17:40 Zakim, mute me 14:17:42 Detlev should now be muted 14:17:53 +??P32 14:17:56 -??P32 14:18:16 ...understand what it says but not sure what the implications are 14:18:24 ...leaves me a bit confused 14:18:25 zakim, mute me 14:18:25 vivienne should now be muted 14:18:31 +??P32 14:18:41 Kerstin has joined #eval 14:18:43 q+ 14:19:12 seems I'm back, so I can take over again 14:19:23 q+ 14:19:29 q? 14:19:29 q+ 14:20:08 Yes 14:20:21 zakim, ??p32 is Kerstin 14:20:21 +Kerstin; got it 14:20:23 zakim, mute me 14:20:23 Kerstin should now be muted 14:20:24 ack me 14:21:15 SAZ: motivation of this section is for the Evaluation Commissioner to select certain techniques, such as from a government or provider 14:21:16 Detlev: Issue was brought up by Alistair, Context unclear now, 14:21:17 ack me 14:21:24 Zakim, mute me 14:21:24 Detlev should now be muted 14:21:28 q+ 14:22:20 agree with Vivienne 14:22:27 zakim, mute me 14:22:27 vivienne should now be muted 14:22:41 Sorry, haven't understood ´what Vivienne said 14:22:46 ack me 14:22:52 q? 14:23:19 Kerstin, I was just saying that I'd like someone to tell me why 3.1.5 step 1e is in there - doesn't make much sense to me 14:23:19 Kathy: in Canada you can only use the sufficient techniques and not the advisory 14:23:36 ack me 14:23:43 zakim, mute me 14:23:43 Kathy_Wahlbin should now be muted 14:23:47 q+ 14:23:47 Kathy: better to refer just to the sufficient techniques 14:24:21 Shadi: clarify the techniques issue with Alistair 14:24:24 -Mike 14:24:37 q+ 14:24:39 q- 14:25:13 ack me 14:25:16 q+ 14:25:32 Shadi: when should we have a look at the techniques section again? bevor or after the working draft, more comfortable not before in a rush 14:25:58 Who is speaking? 14:26:18 zakim, mute me 14:26:18 MartijnHoutepen should now be muted 14:26:23 q? 14:26:30 s/clarify the techniques issue with Alistair/not sure this request came from Alistair alone 14:26:35 Martijn: Implementation of scripting techniques as use case 14:27:40 Eric: We could add a note to techniques section for the feedback of the public 14:27:46 q+ 14:27:55 ack korn 14:28:35 Peter: Explain in a note what the purpose is for specific feedback 14:28:40 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827#status 14:29:36 Eric: We are lloking for feedback for all sections, 14:29:49 q- 14:30:01 ERic: and point to specific sections 14:30:20 ack me 14:30:53 -Sarah_Swierenga 14:30:55 Vivienne: better a note for particularly this section 14:31:10 Vivienne: we could improive the wording more 14:31:16 +Mike 14:31:46 zakim, mute me 14:31:46 vivienne should now be muted 14:31:58 I'm good with Eric's suggestion 14:32:02 fine with me 14:32:02 Eric: We add a note, aksing specific to that section, discussing after the public review period, issue in tracker list 14:32:10 +1 14:32:15 RESOLVED: add editor note with brief description of what we are looking for to step 1e to ask for public review on this section and open an issue to discuss this issue further after publication 14:32:21 Mike_Elledge has joined #eval 14:32:22 +1 14:32:26 +1 14:32:37 ok, for me, even if I have reservations against testing techniques even, as optional 14:32:52 [[add a pointer to this section from "status of this document" too]] 14:33:05 Eric: close this point and come back after 14:33:37 zakim, take up next 14:33:37 agendum 3. "Eval TF Comment #32 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32" taken up [from shadi] 14:34:16 Issue now "Accessibility Statement" 14:34:20 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827#step5b 14:34:50 Eric we expected a lot of discussion, this is what happened. we made a change in the document, step 5b 14:35:19 q+ 14:35:26 [[The website owner commits to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the accessibility statement;]] 14:35:39 I don't see that statement in the draft 14:35:40 q? 14:35:44 was: [[The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them within 10 business days;]] 14:36:06 Peter: I'm not comfortable with the wording 14:36:09 q+ 14:36:15 ack korn 14:37:17 Peter: the findings should be solved in a review period 14:37:17 q? 14:37:54 ack me 14:38:02 Shadi: the conclusion in the email thread was not to delete it 14:38:22 "Provide an option Evaluation Conclusion Statement" perhaps 14:38:29 Shadi: discussion: removing the section or improving the wording 14:38:31 s/option/optional 14:39:02 Shadi: motivation was to avoid statements like: I tested it 5 years ago 14:39:11 q+ 14:39:45 Shadi: Idea is to give guidance to accessibility statement accoding to WCAG2 14:40:03 Shadi: and to be sure that statements ar valid and up to date 14:40:54 Peter: didn't say that there was a consenses 14:41:42 Peter: compare with WCAG, where it says 'conformance' and not 'accessibility statement' 14:41:57 q? 14:42:03 q- 14:42:06 [[Accessibility Statement]] -> [[Methodology Conformance Statement]] 14:42:29 q+ 14:42:31 q+ 14:42:40 [[make clear that this is a public conformance statement]] 14:42:42 ack me 14:42:43 Korn: Yes and make sure that it is a public statement 14:43:07 Detlev: not sure if conformance statement gives the right idea 14:43:21 q+ 14:43:56 ack me 14:44:37 Shadi: no one can control what people are doing with WCAG-EM 14:45:26 Detlev: very little advice about how to test, except the optional techniques 14:45:58 Vivienne: is not in favor of leaving the statement 14:46:02 Zakim, mute me 14:46:02 Detlev should now be muted 14:46:43 ack mike 14:46:45 zakim, mute me 14:46:46 vivienne should now be muted 14:46:55 sorry, didn't get the point of what Vivienne says 14:47:15 q+ 14:47:27 Mike: the accessibility is useless to have it there 14:47:33 agree with Mike 14:47:59 Mike: the accessibility statement is useless to have it there (correction of scribed sentence before) 14:48:23 q+ 14:48:32 ack korn 14:49:20 Peter: this is not a conformance claim 14:49:21 ack me 14:50:26 [[Provide an Accessibility Statement (optional)]] -> [[Statements of Website Conformance (Optional)]] 14:50:32 Shadi: idea of statement rather than claim is to avoid misunderstandings before of the wordings in WCAG2, WCAG-EM and so on 14:51:10 [[An accessibility statement shall be provided.]] -> [[A website conframcne statement according to this methodology shall be provided.]] 14:52:19 Eric: thinks this didn't solve what Peter says 14:53:12 think this is not for the protocoll or? ;-) 14:53:43 good point, Eric 14:53:53 Eric: if we take it out, there will we no public feedback 14:54:14 q+ 14:54:24 Eric: would prefer keep it in to see the reaction 14:54:43 Eric: Or put a remark, that we are not sure about the section 14:55:15 q+ 14:55:20 ack korn 14:55:27 Peter: would like to develop the suggestion of Shadi further 14:55:28 q- 14:55:37 q+ 14:55:43 ack me 14:55:48 Peter: I'm against public review of the text as it is 14:56:20 Shadi: think no one was in favor of writing a statement like this 14:56:59 Shadi: intend is a a11y statement according to this methodology 14:57:24 Shadi: we should add the forgotten word "according to this methodology" 14:57:24 q? 14:57:46 (dazed and confused now...) 14:57:53 can't scribe and speak 14:58:07 I'd like to see it left as is, but just add the 'according to this methodology' bit 14:58:13 q+ 14:58:32 Add "according ---" and left as is. 14:58:46 ack mike 14:59:19 Mike: conformance with wcag2 is adressed there 15:01:03 Mike: does conformance claim is part of wcag-em? 15:01:36 q+ 15:01:48 Shadi: wcag2 is page per page , claim is just for pages 15:02:17 Shadi: the author is responsible for the claim 15:02:58 Shadi: idea is, if you follow the methodology, you can make conformance claim 15:03:26 q? 15:03:59 Peter: finish the statement and post it on the mailing 15:04:56 Shadi: hope next week we will be ready for publication of the next working draft 15:05:20 -Peter_Korn 15:05:24 Eric: end of the call 15:05:41 bye now - thanks for trying to clear up some muddy water 15:05:41 bye 15:05:45 korn has left #eval 15:05:46 thanks, bye 15:05:53 zakim, unmute me 15:05:53 MartijnHoutepen should no longer be muted 15:06:07 bye 15:06:13 ack me 15:06:14 bye 15:06:16 -Kathy_Wahlbin 15:06:19 -Liz 15:06:19 -Mike 15:06:20 -vivienne 15:06:21 -MartijnHoutepen 15:06:22 -Shadi 15:06:23 -Kerstin 15:06:28 -ericvelleman 15:06:30 MartijnHoutepen has left #eval 15:09:23 -Detlev 15:09:25 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended 15:09:25 Attendees were Shadi, +1.248.342.aaaa, Mike, Detlev, Liz, MartijnHoutepen, Kathy_Wahlbin, Sarah_Swierenga, vivienne, ericvelleman, Kerstin, Peter_Korn 15:13:41 trackbot, end meeting 15:13:41 Zakim, list attendees 15:13:41 sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 15:13:49 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:13:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/30-eval-minutes.html trackbot 15:13:50 RRSAgent, bye 15:13:50 I see no action items