08:05:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eval
08:05:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-eval-irc
08:05:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
08:05:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eval
08:05:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3825
08:05:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_WCAG_()4:00AM scheduled to start 5 minutes ago
08:05:09 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
08:05:09 <trackbot> Date: 30 October 2012
08:05:23 <kostasvotis> kostasvotis has joined #eval
08:05:35 <shadi> zakim, call st_claire1
08:05:36 <Zakim> I am sorry, shadi; I do not know a number for st_claire1
08:06:01 <shadi> zakim, call st_clair_1
08:06:01 <Zakim> ok, shadi; the call is being made
08:06:02 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG_()4:00AM has now started
08:06:03 <Zakim> +St_clair_1
08:07:02 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #eval
08:07:07 <JohnS> JohnS has joined #eval
08:07:19 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
08:07:20 <aurelien_levy> aurelien_levy has joined #eval
08:07:20 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #eval
08:08:00 <dominique> dominique has joined #eval
08:08:07 <Ryladog> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/
08:08:17 <shawn> shawn has joined #eval
08:08:30 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/f2f_TPAC.html
08:08:59 <vivienne> scribe: vivienne
08:11:56 <vivienne> Eric: agenda
08:12:09 <vivienne> Eric: SEO - WCAG-EM comes up
08:12:36 <jkiss> jkiss has joined #eval
08:13:51 <Sylvie> Sylvie has joined #eval
08:14:14 <vivienne> Eric: outlined the agenda for today http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/f2f_TPAC
08:14:30 <vivienne> Eric: introductions of those present
08:23:20 <vivienne> Shadi: outlined the technical issues we worked on yesterday.  Today with EOWG will be looking at the educational value of the document.  We should try to stay on the higher level - overall issues.  Want to look at definitions, but keep minor comments for later discussion.
08:23:41 <vivienne> Katie: do we want to look at the numbering schema - yes.
08:24:13 <vivienne> Eric: ask EOWG of the first impression of the document
08:26:03 <vivienne> Shawn: first impression - cool.  Several people found that wading through the links to the definitions was prohibitive, not for just screen reader users. In the introduction you see constant words underlined to show definitions.
08:27:30 <vivienne> Sylvie: the links are difficult to remember.  The numbering of sections is difficult to work through and follow because of the numbers.  Sounds like reading a math text.
08:29:06 <vivienne> Shawn:  in the main part of the document - where it says 2.1 Scope of applicability.  Having 2.1 in there may be unnecessary and maybe even having it linked may be unnecessary.  Looking at 3.1.1. Step 1.a - that needs work and referring to it is cumbersome
08:29:20 <vivienne> Katie: would it be better to have 2.1 - scope of applicability?
08:29:54 <vivienne> Ramon: in other W3C documents we don't have numbering like this - like in WCAG 2
08:30:01 <vivienne> Katie: but it's not a methodology
08:30:16 <vivienne> Detlev: you're not sure if it is part of the hierarchy
08:30:41 <vivienne> Detlev: there is too much structure and it gets in the way
08:30:46 <shawn> +1 to Devlev
08:31:05 <shawn> says: 3.1.1 Step 1.a: Define the Scope of the Website
08:31:05 <shawn> Methodology Requirement 1.a: Define the scope of the website.
08:31:10 <vivienne> Eric: it gets worse as you go down
08:31:36 <vivienne> Eric: go back to the top of the document where you can see the table of contents
08:32:51 <vivienne> Eric: reviewed how it is set up as steps because we want people to see that it is sequential steps
08:33:16 <vivienne> Hella: you are mixing 2 different numbering systems
08:33:29 <vivienne> Shawn: can you take off the numbering at the first level all together
08:34:45 <shawn> take off all numbering - then all that is left is the Step numbering
08:35:36 <vivienne> Shawn: take off the first level of numbers e.g. for Introduction, and the next level for Scope of this document
08:36:30 <vivienne> Aurelian: we already know that it is steps - Conformance Evaluation Procedure, Step 1..., 1.1, 1.2
08:36:39 <shawn> Step 1. then 1.a., 1.b, 1.c OR then 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
08:38:55 <vivienne> Eric - in 3, we would drop the 3 and also with the 3.1
08:39:41 <shadi> zakim, code?
08:39:41 <Zakim> the conference code is 3825 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), shadi
08:39:55 <hbj> hbj has joined #eval
08:39:56 <shawn> s/Aurelian/Aurelien
08:39:59 <vivienne> Thanks Sylvie!
08:40:10 <shawn> s/Hella/Helle/
08:41:21 <vivienne> Aurelien: we say we must have 1.2 or 1.b, as there are no other numbers, we may be able to get more simple and just have numbers, or just keeping a,b,c,
08:41:30 <vivienne> Detlev: you would need 1a or 2a
08:41:48 <vivienne> Detlev, it has to be 1a or 2c or 3d
08:44:20 <vivienne> Katie: has a word document that we will share to show the proposed numbering
08:45:58 <vivienne> all agreed that it looks so much more simple now
08:46:47 <vivienne> Shawn: it makes is stronger because the only numbering is for the steps
08:47:10 <vivienne> Syivie: it will have a better flow for reading
08:47:20 <vivienne> Katie: will stick it in IRC as "Suggested Numbering"
08:48:03 <vivienne> Eric: in agenda - alignment with other WAI documents - next topic
08:48:41 <vivienne> Shawn: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/
08:50:16 <Ryladog> Suggested Numbering Streamlining Change  Introduction o	Scope of this Document o	Target Audience o	Background Reading o	Terms and Definitions Using this Methodology o	Scope of Applicability 	Particular Types of Websites o	Required Expertise o	Evaluation Tools (Optional) o	Review Teams (Optional) o	Involving Users (Optional) Conformance Evaluation Procedure o	Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope 	1.a or 1.1: Define the Scope of the Website 	1.[CUT]
08:50:18 <vivienne> Shawn: how does WCAG-EM relate to this older document.  We are re-doing the preliminary review - maybe 'quick checks'.  The page that is currently called "Performance Evaluation" might even be WCAG-EM (Light).  Quick check is like a 5 minute check or a 15 minute check.  If you really want to do conformance, you go to WCAG-EM.
08:50:57 <vivienne> Shawn: that is just 1 approach.  For the specifications we have a very brief overview page - who document is for, what is in it, and points to technical specification - no content, just an introduction
08:51:13 <vivienne> Shawn: of all the other sub-sections, how does it relate to what we have elsewhere?
08:52:49 <vivienne> Shadi: ongoing discussion about what is in the scope of WCAG-EM and what is not.  There are idea of what a consultant does to help an organisation towards certification etc.  The purpose of WCAG-EM is harmonize the approaches.  Having a WCAG-light should be guidance of its own.
08:53:02 <vivienne> Shawn: the intro page is a high level description
08:53:58 <vivienne> Shawn: WCAG over - who is it for, what is in it, also has WCAG 2 at a glance
08:54:30 <shadi> s/WCAG-light should be/WCAG-light should not be
08:55:02 <vivienne> Detlev: would like the 5 minute check, 15 minute - should say clearly that it is a spot check.  We do that already when we are contacted to get a first impression as evaluators.  Like the label which indicates that it is not a full conformance evaluation.
08:56:00 <shawn> q+
08:56:31 <vivienne> Ramon: when I read the methodology for the first time, I didn't know that it was always to assess the full conformance.  EG for a basic report, I didn't understand that it would give a report of conformance.  I don't like the idea of fragmenting between preliminary to full report.  We do many types of evaluations and don't want to have to go to different type of methdologies.
08:57:39 <vivienne> Shadi: we are re-opening the scope of WCAG-EM here and should save that.  the preliminary eval is not a conformance check.
08:58:18 <vivienne> Shadi: introduction document should be more of a summary - eg there are 5 steps - here are the steps
08:59:21 <shawn> Shawn: goal of this page is easy-to-digest introduction, e.g., for managers
08:59:30 <vivienne> Shawn: goal would be to have an overview of the WCAG-EM - like an executive summary
08:59:46 <vivienne> Shadi: like the WCAG at a glance -  it is not the WCAG, it is just an overview
09:00:10 <shawn> shawn: *not* WCAG-EM light
09:00:34 <vivienne> Aurelien: the 15 minute light is not the WCAG-EM
09:01:21 <Ryladog> q+
09:01:32 <vivienne> Ramon: most of the steps can be shared - you more or less do the sample, you do the same steps but in a smaller way.  It is not any level of conformance, but it just a check.
09:01:44 <ericvelleman> q?
09:03:59 <shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_Analysis
09:04:10 <vivienne> Shawn: if I'm having problems with the website, I would want to know what the problems are before I contact the organisation and I could use this.  e.g. check the alt text.  Provided an example of how someone could use the quick checks, use the overview so they could see whether an bidding evaluator has an accessible website themselves.
09:05:10 <vivienne> Shawn: demonstrated the link above to show the different use cases.
09:05:39 <shawn> ack me
09:05:43 <shawn> ack ry
09:06:18 <vivienne> Katie: on the overview - agrees the need for the page - who it is for etc.  like: Introd WCAG
09:06:36 <vivienne> Shadi:  section: What's in WCAg-EM
09:07:34 <vivienne> Shawn: we've got good guidance to go back to EO.  We're also looking at simplifying the quick checks - just based on a single web page.
09:07:54 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has left #eval
09:08:06 <vivienne> Ramon: does it work in reality?  A quick check of only 1 page - would only show if it is a complete disaster.
09:08:10 <shadi> q+
09:08:14 <vivienne> q+
09:08:14 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
09:08:23 <ericvelleman> q?
09:08:41 <vivienne> Shawn: we're only looking at whether it is a complete disaster or not
09:08:48 <vivienne> Ramon: we usually do more like 5 pages
09:09:10 <vivienne> Shawn:  still not comfortable that we don't have the middle thing.  Keep working on the preliminary.
09:09:41 <shawn> q?
09:10:49 <vivienne> Helle:  there is some good ideas of just looking at 1 page - e.g. headings etc.  It is a step to say should I go further into the website, or is it so terrible that I just stop at the front.  You can do it yourself with your own website and don't need a consultant to see where the worst problems are.
09:11:27 <shawn> q+ to ask what about other sections and other existing documents?
09:11:40 <shawn> ack shadi
09:12:29 <vivienne> Shadi: motivation for the preliminary review is the target audience - people who are not technical - manager who need help.  for WCAG-EM is non-trivial and we want to be able to say that when they used the procedure it is comparable with someone else.  We would want the person who does the pre-sales check to know what they are doing.  It cause potential confusion.
09:13:22 <shawn> ack v
09:13:36 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
09:13:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see St_clair_1
09:14:15 <shawn> Vivienne: Can see the quick checks for single webpage would be useful for training
09:14:41 <vivienne> Shawn: we're thinking of use the BAD for that
09:14:45 <shadi> ack s
09:14:45 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask what about other sections and other existing documents?
09:15:22 <shadi> q+ shawn
09:16:11 <vivienne> dominique: checking to see is if my website compliant to a standard (ISO).  You need a process, not simple, WCAG-EM provides guidance to go through a process.  The target needs to made really clear that this is the purpose in the first sections - target audience etc.
09:16:48 <vivienne> Dominique: 5 minute is more for advocacy, E&O, - needs to be inspired by the WCAG-EM
09:16:52 <ericvelleman> q?
09:16:55 <shawn> q+ to say WCAG + ISO!?!? (and also say comment before)
09:17:02 <vivienne> You can't have a WCAG-EM light to do this
09:17:13 <vivienne> Katie: like WCAG, there are principles
09:17:25 <vivienne> Shadi: the overview/summary is 5 steps
09:18:22 <vivienne> Shawn: evaluate conformance to WCAG do we now want to say ISO?
09:19:16 <vivienne> Helle: is this document going to be part of mandate 376 going into procurement work?  Is the WCAG-EM going to be a standard like a ISO 9000?
09:20:24 <vivienne> Shadi: it is a non-normative document, not even a W3C recommendation.  It needs to be kept clear that WCAG is the standard.  WCAG-EM is a way to check with reasonable confidence if you have met that.  People should follow WCAG in their development, not WCAG-EM.  It is not trying to be an ISO standarfd.
09:20:36 <vivienne> Ramon: it must be clear that this is 1 method, not the only method.
09:21:02 <shawn> s/evaluate conformance to WCAG do we now want to say ISO?/the document currently says: "evaluate conformance to WCAG". do we now want to say "evaluate conformance to WCAG (which is also ISOIEC 40500:2012)"?/
09:21:46 <vivienne> Shadi: it is not the intent to push all W3C standards through ISO.  WCAG was particularly for countries that were starting to develop the UN Convention of the Rights of people with disabilities.  ISO language needs to be carefully used.
09:22:07 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has left #eval
09:22:24 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
09:22:27 <ericvelleman> q?
09:23:06 <vivienne> John: Mandate 376 - due to current status for us to include it in the technical report.  Was supposed to go in the Evaluation Criteria.  The benefit of having this, it can be re-submitted to the technical report? sorry not sure of the acronyms?
09:24:24 <vivienne> Shadi: the main specification to Mandate 376 there is a reference to the WCAG-EM.  WCAG is in there in full - a reference that for evaluation you can use WCAG-EM as one of the possibilities.
09:24:39 <vivienne> John: certain portions will be included in the technical report - can be added at a later time.l
09:25:14 <vivienne> Shawn: maybe the answer on the ISO is that there is a lot of support for it.
09:25:26 <vivienne> Shadi: needs to be worded in a way that it is not confusing
09:26:30 <shawn> ack me
09:26:30 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say WCAG + ISO!?!? (and also say comment before)
09:26:33 <shawn>  you wanted to ask what about other sections and other existing documents
09:27:46 <vivienne> Shawn: we looked briefly at the evaluation suite and the sub-documents.  How does that overlap with what you have in here.  For example, you have "involving users" how does that relate to the WCAG-EM.  You have review teams, evaluation tools.
09:55:47 <hbj> hbj has joined #eval
10:03:15 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
10:12:20 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has left #eval
10:12:47 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
10:14:26 <shadi> scribe: shadi
10:16:45 <ericvelleman> session II
10:17:02 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #eval
10:17:07 <shadi> scribe: detlev
10:17:16 <ericvelleman> topic: Session II
10:17:17 <Detlev> scribe: Detlev
10:18:11 <shawn> shawn has joined #eval
10:18:17 <Sylvie> Sylvie has joined #eval
10:18:30 <Detlev> Topic: :Alignment with other WAI documents
10:19:09 <Detlev> Eric: we got comments from WCAG WG: bemore careful with outgoing links
10:19:37 <Detlev> Eric: Some stuff in background reading
10:20:22 <Detlev> Eric: Overview page is agreed - do we need more?
10:20:50 <JohnS_> JohnS_ has joined #eval
10:20:56 <Detlev> Shadi: There were comments on background reading (required knowledge) - too much linking out
10:22:19 <Detlev> Shadi: In section 2 there were some 'teasers' linking some thought that should be included or left out
10:22:32 <vivienne> q+
10:23:39 <Detlev> Shadi: in 3 Conformance Eval Procedure there is a link to prelim evaluation but that may have been taken out already
10:24:40 <Detlev> Eric: this link is in Section 2 and 4.1 - comment was: If this is important, then maybe include in document?
10:25:24 <Detlev> Shawn: in 1.3 background reading there were comments on accessible web design
10:25:49 <Detlev> Shawn: problem of including it in WCAG-EM is that it gets overwhelming
10:25:56 <ericvelleman> q?
10:25:57 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c4
10:26:26 <Detlev> Vivienne: Regarding links out, if there are many you tend to not go there
10:26:36 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20120816misc/results
10:26:47 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20120830evaltf/results
10:27:13 <Detlev> Vivienne: links out may not be used therefore a synopsis could describe what it#s about instead of just having the link
10:27:58 <Detlev> Shawn: Involving users...
10:28:29 <ericvelleman> q?
10:28:31 <Detlev> Shadi: Michael Cooper had an issue with that
10:28:38 <hbj> hbj has joined #eval
10:29:37 <Detlev> Ramon: Though the methodology could be used by everyone - now he gets the imression it is only suited for expert evaluators
10:29:56 <Detlev> Ramon: this seems in conflict with the stated group of users of WCAG EM
10:30:38 <ericvelleman> q?
10:30:45 <vivienne> q-
10:30:48 <shadi> q+
10:32:57 <Detlev> Detlev: doesn#t cover details - scope  and sampling is more general than havingto know all the accessibility tecjnical stuff
10:33:08 <Detlev> Michael Cooper enters room
10:33:53 <Detlev> Shadi: assumption that anyone dowing actual evaluations will have to be a11y experts
10:34:40 <shawn> [[ current wording: "It is assumed that the reader of this document is familiar with the following related resources from W3C/WAI:"
10:34:40 <shawn> Ideas for edited wording: "To effectively use this methodology, you should be familiar with the following related information."
10:34:40 <shawn> or "The information below related to WCAG 2.0 and evaluation is important background for using this methodology. "http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_review]
10:34:50 <Detlev> Shadi: WCAG EM is a particular type of evaluations mostly geared towards people who are not developers themselves (in house scenario)
10:34:58 <vivienne> q+
10:35:12 <shawn> ack v
10:35:18 <shadi> ack me
10:35:53 <Detlev> Vivienne: Maybe we need to explain how the different stakeholders (developer, owner, externa evaluator) can use WCAG EM
10:36:22 <Detlev> Vivienne: Otherwise those users will not know why it is aimed at them
10:36:41 <Detlev> Vivienne: explaining other use cases for WCAG eM
10:37:36 <Detlev> Vivienne: Shadi (addressing Michael) regarding comments about linking out
10:38:49 <Detlev> Michael: my concern was that there was repetition by pointing readers to external resources, having go back and forth, 2) the two kinds of docs don't have the same status (informal/ formal)
10:38:55 <shawn> Michael: I have no problem with linking out in Background Reading. I have problem if *requirements* are in another document.
10:39:20 <Detlev> Michael: try to put everything you need right into WCAG EM and then point to further info as well where needed
10:40:01 <Detlev> Shawn, Shadi looking for areas in text that demonstrated theproblem
10:40:52 <Detlev> Shadi: Problem more pronouced with links to Understanding doc and techniques
10:41:01 <Judy> Judy has joined #eval
10:42:22 <Detlev> Michael: either point out straight waway or include it all - just one para and then linking out throws you off course
10:43:28 <Detlev> Shawn: Distinguishing between usefuk but not treqiured info, and info essential for following WCAG EM
10:44:15 <shadi> .oO WCAG'em
10:44:26 <Detlev> Michael: righr under heading, one may link out to more detailed documents, then sumarising.
10:44:59 <Detlev> Shawn: links out in the actual conformance steps?
10:45:08 <Detlev> Shadi: no, was taken out
10:45:45 <Detlev> Shadi: Example of evaluation tools - no specific tools required but it is an importany evaluationant part for
10:46:16 <Detlev> Shawn:
10:46:57 <Detlev> Shawn: problem with verry long documents that may be out of date, not useful to reference
10:47:06 <vivienne> q+
10:47:39 <Detlev> Shawn: Should the doc itself provide guidance, or just link to guidance?
10:48:12 <Detlev> Michael: uif this was a spec, I would wnat to read this top to bottom as selfcontained as possible
10:48:17 <shawn> s/Should the doc itself provide guidance, or just link to guidance?/Are you saying the doc itself should provide guidance? or just link to guidance?/
10:48:53 <shawn> cooper: I feel like I'm reading along and need to go read this other document and come back...
10:49:13 <ericvelleman> q?
10:49:22 <Detlev> Michael: partial summary with link to more detailed doc so it feels self-contained
10:49:24 <shawn> q+
10:50:03 <shawn> q+ to say helpful to hear *what* the issue is so we can better address it
10:50:14 <Detlev> Vivienne: Reg. evaluation tools: would like to see more guidance regarding the selection of tools
10:50:35 <shawn> ack v
10:50:50 <shawn> ack me
10:50:50 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say helpful to hear *what* the issue is so we can better address it
10:50:53 <vivienne> q-
10:50:56 <Detlev> Vivienne: aim would be to have enough info to understand importance of tools and selecting appropriate ones
10:51:22 <shadi> Present: Eric Velleman, Katie Haritos-Shea, Vivienne Conway, Detlev Fischer, Aurelien Levy, Ramon Corominas, Shadi Abou-Zahra, Sylvie Duchateau (EOWG), Helle Bjarno (EOWG), Shawn Henry (EOWG), Dominique Burger (Observer), John S Lee (Observer)
10:52:15 <Detlev> Shawn: we should no tfocus on specifics but think about what users of the doc really need to make it a useable document
10:53:17 <Detlev> Shadi: Eric, are there more comments that Michael should respond to?
10:54:21 <Detlev> Eric: another issue was the consistent use of 'must', 'shall' etc
10:54:58 <Detlev> Michael: SOm people would still lie to be normative, but if this is not going to happen, then the language must be softened
10:55:56 <Detlev> Shadi: issue that it is often not possible to cover every functionality especially in a web application - the  issue is the wording of 'common functionality'
10:56:18 <Detlev> Michael: Start with 'What is the web site for?'
10:57:16 <ericvelleman> q?
10:57:24 <Detlev> Michael: Address this from the user perspective - register, place order, chat with other users, get information etc. different from the raison d'etre of the web site to put the company forward as a great entity
10:58:24 <Detlev> Shadi: We have 'including user tasks' etc - the argument was how can we distinguish important / critical / key processes
10:58:44 <Detlev> Ramon: core?
10:59:25 <shawn> Detlev: all critical for reaching users' objectives
10:59:41 <Detlev> Shadi: we tried different adjectives - another approach
11:00:07 <Detlev> Detlev: all functionality critical for reaching user's objective?
11:00:30 <Detlev> Vivienne: key tasks key funcrtionality
11:00:52 <Detlev> Michael: some things are truly common such as registering, others mopre individual
11:01:56 <Sylvie> Sylvie has joined #eval
11:02:09 <Detlev> Shawn: Dominique: Problem is two worlds: we need a definition of user tasks, and what tasks are taken into consideration in evaluation
11:02:46 <shawn> Shawn: how it is used in the document: 3.2.2 Step 2.b: Identify Common Functionality of the Website
11:03:07 <shawn> s/Shawn: Dominique: Problem is two worlds: we need a definition/Dominique: Problem is two worlds: we need a definition
11:03:58 <Detlev> Ramon: propose 'essential': if removed, this would fundamentally change the information or functionality' (glossary of WCAG)
11:04:29 <shawn> WCAG 2 glossary: "essential- if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform"
11:04:53 <ericvelleman> q?
11:05:07 <shadi> q+
11:05:51 <shawn> detlev: not sure why two views. looking at users trying to achieve something
11:07:54 <ericvelleman> q?
11:08:13 <vivienne> q+
11:08:20 <shawn> "Methodology Requirement 2.b: Identify the common functionality of the website. ...The outcome of this step is a list of user tasks..."
11:08:58 <Detlev> Dominique: in theevaluation process, the evaluators need to state what tasks they consider important for checking - at this point they need to declare what  they consider essential - the definition of the task itself might be different - so the process of evaluation singles out what evaluation looks at
11:09:49 <Detlev> Shawn: For practical reasons a selection need to be made: the owner may propose key tasks and the evaluator may confirm that, or disagree and correct it
11:10:05 <shadi> ack me
11:10:20 <dominique> dominique has joined #eval
11:11:08 <shawn> q+ to ask shadi if it's clear do this with evaluation commissioner?
11:11:27 <Detlev> Shadi: Step 1 includes commissioner where possible, step 2 possibly the developer - the idea is exploration to inform the selection of a representative sample
11:12:05 <Detlev> Shadi: allows to create tasks that are fairly high-level, then select pages to reflect that
11:13:15 <Detlev> Shadi: this may later includes subtasks, such as subtasks 'change hoe address' in the overall purchasing task at Amazon or similar
11:13:24 <shawn> q+ to clarify comment for the minutes: Shadi said (something like) "Step two ideally is done with the Evaluation Commissioner. slh doesn't remember that that is clear in the doc...
11:14:17 <Detlev> Shadi: third level may be 'entering a date'
11:15:00 <Detlev> Shadi: For sampling, this may mean that some subtask are covered by the same state of a page
11:15:37 <Detlev> Vivienne: >Thetasks should reappear in the section on reporting
11:16:39 <Detlev> Vivienne: sees problem with the word 'essential' for tasks - user may not do anything on a site - instead it could be important, key, etc, essential sounds like mandatory
11:16:50 <Detlev> q+
11:17:23 <Detlev> Ramon: explains 'essential' as not meaning mandatory but as invalidating the  user experience
11:17:38 <shawn> ack v
11:18:06 <Detlev> 'essential functionality' rather than 'essential tasks'
11:18:07 <Ryladog> q+
11:18:10 <Detlev> q-
11:18:37 <shawn> ack r
11:19:19 <Detlev> katie: if you distinguish primary and secondary as sewquential rather than a matter of priority it is perhaps clearer
11:19:39 <Detlev> Shawn: but some things *are* more important than others
11:19:52 <shawn> ack me
11:19:52 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask shadi if it's clear do this with evaluation commissioner? and to clarify comment for the minutes: Shadi said (something like) "Step two ideally is done
11:19:56 <Zakim> ... with the Evaluation Commissioner. slh doesn't remember that that is clear in the doc...
11:20:47 <Detlev> Shawn: If, say, step 1 is to be done with the commissoner, is that clear from the document?
11:21:00 <Detlev> Shadi: This is optional
11:21:37 <Detlev> Eric: problem of comissioners trying to suggest a particular scope (to avoid things to be evaluated)
11:22:08 <Detlev> They want to constrain evaluation, for example, to get a logo for their site no matter what
11:23:09 <Detlev> Eric: Problerm of dlineating sirtes and parts of sites that follow the same design or are fuincrtionally important - often difficult to distinguish
11:23:19 <JohnS_> q+
11:23:37 <Detlev> q+
11:23:56 <Detlev> Eric: difficulty of defining key functionality
11:24:10 <vivienne> q+
11:24:26 <Detlev> katie: simply because it is hard, it should not be left out
11:24:34 <ericvelleman> q?
11:25:27 <Detlev> Shadi: Assuming that there are multipe levels of functionality, we have only described the top level
11:25:53 <Detlev> High level task implies that lower levels need to be defined / targeted for later sampling
11:26:47 <Detlev> Shadi: some tasks may be outside thie initial exploratio nbut may later enter the evaluation
11:28:02 <shawn> Detlev: have similar issue - commissioner would like to exclude somet hings from the evaluation
11:28:22 <shawn> ... want to prevent it
11:28:47 <shawn> John: the issue with to make it clear in the scope - what was included in teh evaluation (and what was not)
11:29:25 <JohnS_> In the scope of the reporting of the evaluation
11:30:20 <shawn> Detlev: WCAG-EM defines XYZ - then whoever uses it, defines xyz - evaluator decides if they just take the tasks that the commissioner wants - OR the evaluator decides that they wil include all important funtctionality/tasks, e.g., if it is an evaluation  for a seal
11:30:56 <Detlev> John (before Detlev): does not matter if commissioner defines the scope because the report makes limitation clear
11:32:00 <Detlev> Vivienne: Does not always communicate with commissioner what 'key processes included' actually are - evaluator has to form an independent opinion as to what are the main user goals / processes
11:32:01 <shadi> q+
11:32:09 <shadi> q- j
11:32:09 <Detlev> -q
11:32:13 <shawn> ack v
11:33:25 <Detlev> Ramon: matter of reliability and confidence of the methodology - if a label is handed out site owners - WCAG itself would prohibit a labrl on any site that has not been evaluated - so how can we get round this problem?
11:33:48 <Detlev> Ramon: WCAG EM should provide a measure of reliability on its own
11:33:55 <ericvelleman> q?
11:34:07 <shawn> q+
11:34:47 <Detlev> Ramon: the a11y logo of the certifying org  implies a conformance claim according to WCAG
11:35:19 <Detlev> Shadi: are there any ways of ensuring important parts are not left out?
11:35:32 <Detlev> q_
11:35:36 <Detlev> q+
11:35:39 <shawn> ack shadi
11:35:49 <Detlev> q-
11:35:59 <shawn> q-
11:36:13 <Detlev> Eric: wrap-up
11:38:32 <Detlev> Afternoon work: highlevel look at report templates than maybe some detail work
11:39:03 <Detlev> rrsagent, draft minutes
11:39:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-eval-minutes.html Detlev
11:52:18 <Judy> Judy has joined #eval
12:41:54 <Judy> Judy has joined #eval
12:58:55 <shawn> shawn has joined #eval
13:04:57 <jkiss> jkiss has joined #eval
13:08:26 <aurelien_levy> aurelien_levy has joined #eval
13:10:33 <shadi> shadi has joined #eval
13:10:56 <shadi> scribe: shadi
13:12:14 <shadi> Topic: Alignments of Evaluation Documents
13:12:26 <dominique> dominique has joined #eval
13:12:57 <shadi> Eric: have overview page for EOWG to do
13:13:02 <Sylvie> Sylvie has joined #eval
13:13:52 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
13:14:37 <shadi> Shawn: the documents referenced in "using this methodology" is important
13:16:18 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #eval
13:16:40 <shadi> ...does section "particular types of websites" overlap with the EO resource "considerations for specific contexts"
13:17:12 <shadi> Shadi: yes, some overlap but in the context of conformance evaluation
13:17:33 <shadi> ...not sure what the future of "consideration for specific contexts" will be
13:18:17 <shadi> Ramon: we use the word "context" differently in WCAG-EM and in the EO resource
13:18:57 <shadi> Shawn: not sure what the future is of this document
13:22:10 <shadi> Shawn: does "required expertise" section overlap with "review teams"
13:22:24 <shadi> Shadi: no, really about the expertise of the evaluator
13:24:03 <shadi> Eric: will the "selecting web accessibility evaluation tools" become something completely different in the future?
13:24:17 <shadi> Shadi: conceptually will always provide the same information
13:24:39 <shadi> ...but the content may change significantly
13:25:27 <shadi> Eric: can we do more to address Michael's comment?
13:25:48 <shadi> Detlev: was it to remove content or to actually add more description?
13:26:13 <shadi> Shawn: user may not know how to fix and issue but what they actually want
13:26:22 <shadi> ...want to have all information in one place
13:29:01 <shadi> Detlev: impression that the main concern is relying on non-normative resources
13:30:23 <shawn> shadi: scenario: experienced web developer doing first formal conformance eval
13:30:41 <shadi> Vivienne: why is it optional?
13:32:09 <shadi> Shawn: "required expertise" is non-optional and "review teams" is optional
13:32:22 <shadi> Vivienne: have to use some sort of tools to determine conformance
13:32:29 <shadi> ...at least color contrast
13:32:36 <shadi> q+
13:32:59 <shadi> Detlev: could just drop optional because doesn't mandate anything in particular
13:33:52 <shadi> ack me
13:34:53 <shadi> Shadi: maybe that is what also confused Michael to think that these sections are part of the steps in the procedure
13:35:18 <shadi> Eric: had discussions about that in the past
13:35:35 <shadi> ...would seem that we are requiring "review teams"?
13:35:41 <shadi> Detlev: people need to read the text more carefully
13:36:01 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #eval
13:36:26 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #eval
13:37:27 <shawn> q+
13:37:28 <ericvelleman> q?
13:37:44 <shawn> ack me
13:37:50 <hbj> hbj has joined #eval
13:38:12 <shadi> Ramon: is notepad a tool?
13:38:25 <shadi> Shawn: not important what a tool is in this context
13:39:25 <shawn> Shawn: suggest remove "(optional)" and leave text to clarify
13:39:45 <shadi> [unanimous consent to removing the word "optional"]
13:42:45 <shadi> Eric: [reads aloud section "evaluation tools"]
13:44:06 <Ryladog> q+
13:44:16 <shadi> Vivienne: maybe need to emphasize that we are talking about automated tools in the note
13:44:29 <shadi> Shadi: word smithing can be done later
13:44:43 <vivienne> q+
13:44:45 <shawn> shadi: e.g., read 2.3 Evaluation Tools - how does this work ifyou are an experienced evaluator? do you feel like you have to go read this? (addressing Michael's issue)
13:44:54 <ericvelleman> q?
13:44:59 <shadi> Detlev: people want to know if the link sends you outside the document or stay within the document
13:45:21 <shawn> ack r
13:45:51 <shadi> Katie: maybe add a couple of examples of different types of tools
13:47:18 <shadi> Shadi: does that help someone who is knowledgeable of accessibility
13:47:37 <shadi> Katie: maybe describe what tools are
13:47:45 <shadi> ...not only expensive tools but also different ones
13:48:04 <Sylvie> Q+
13:48:08 <shadi> Vivienne: suggestion has merit
13:48:11 <shawn> ack v
13:48:23 <shadi> ...but listing individual tools would quickly get outdated
13:48:46 <shawn> ack s
13:49:06 <shadi> Sylvie: think that section is really clear
13:49:22 <shadi> ...maybe example without quoting any tool
13:49:36 <Ryladog> *free browser based accessibility tool, free contrast ratio anaylizers, Free DOM inspection tools for AAPI's, etc
13:50:01 <Detlev> q+
13:50:16 <Ryladog> * Free AT
13:50:22 <shadi> q+ to make proposal
13:50:38 <shawn> ack d
13:50:59 <shadi> Detlev: anyone going to provide such a list and maintain it
13:52:50 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #eval
13:54:51 <Ryladog> Q=
13:55:06 <ericvelleman> q?
13:55:06 <shadi> q?
13:55:09 <shadi> ack me
13:55:09 <Zakim> shadi, you wanted to make proposal
13:57:41 <shadi> Shadi: add brief description of tools but rest of the section seems ok?
13:57:47 <shadi> Katie: add types of tools, like DOM inspection tools
13:58:09 <shadi> Shadi: need to look later at what specifically comes into this brief description
13:59:02 <shadi> Topic: Types of Evaluation Goals
13:59:39 <shadi> Eric: [reads aloud section "define the goal of evaluation"]
14:00:23 <vivienne> q+
14:00:34 <Sylvie> q+
14:00:39 <shadi> Eric: all three types are full conformance evaluations
14:00:46 <shadi> ...just different degrees of detail
14:01:14 <shadi> Dominique: only speaking of reports or also different evaluation styles
14:01:37 <shadi> Ramon: think they are different types of evaluations
14:01:38 <shadi> q+
14:02:14 <Detlev> q+
14:02:35 <shadi> ...sounds to me like "basic evaluation" rather than "basic report"
14:02:39 <shadi> ack v
14:02:54 <shadi> Vivienne: questioning the use of the word "report" there
14:03:06 <shadi> ...is more of an evaluation than the report
14:03:41 <shadi> ...also think should be more descriptive at the beginning of the section that they are all conformance evaluations
14:03:43 <shawn> q+
14:03:53 <shadi> q- last
14:04:21 <shawn> q+ to say it's the same evaluation, but different levels of feedback
14:04:35 <Ryladog> q+
14:04:38 <shadi> ...need to explain that evaluation is not the same
14:04:41 <shadi> q-
14:04:42 <shadi> q+
14:05:13 <shadi> s/is not the same/is the same
14:05:20 <shadi> ...just different type of report
14:05:59 <shadi> Ramon: not sure if it is the same type of evaluation
14:06:13 <shadi> ...may need less detailed checking if only to say conform or not
14:06:40 <shadi> ...if the report is more detailed then may need to evaluate in more details
14:06:44 <shadi> ...or using more pages
14:07:27 <shadi> Ramon: concerned about requirement for repair suggestions to be provided under in-depth analysis
14:07:47 <shadi> ...not all evaluators can provide this
14:07:51 <shawn> ... maybe the knoweldge to provide fixes is beyond conformance eval
14:08:16 <shawn> ack sy
14:08:18 <shadi> ack sylvie
14:08:44 <shadi> Sylvie: can't really understand the difference between "detail report" and "in-depth analysis2
14:09:09 <shadi> ...also with conformance evaluation, always need to check things in detail
14:10:36 <shawn> ack d
14:10:54 <shadi> ...also the definition for "detailed report" talks about use for developers whereas this methodology is for websites after they are done
14:11:09 <shawn> q-
14:11:37 <shadi> Detlev: some methodology that are targeted to only judge conformance may stop when errors are identified
14:12:15 <shadi> ...other methodologies that want to provide more information will go through the entire sample in any case
14:13:19 <shadi> ...quite significant differences in doing things
14:13:29 <shadi> q+ aurelien
14:13:38 <shadi> q- last
14:13:44 <shadi> q-
14:13:45 <shadi> q+
14:14:51 <shadi> Shawn: don't think "basic evaluation" is good as it may get confused with "preliminary evaluation"
14:15:21 <shadi> Shadi: had that initially, and had exactly that issue
14:15:32 <ericvelleman> q?
14:16:58 <shawn> q+ Dominique
14:17:13 <shawn> ack r
14:17:34 <shadi> Shawn: agree with Detlev that doing a detailed evaluation may be different from a basic evaluation
14:17:46 <shadi> q-
14:17:47 <shadi> q+
14:18:49 <shadi> Katie: think same approach for all three types of evaluation
14:19:38 <shadi> q= aurelien, dominique, ramon, shadi
14:19:45 <shadi> queue= aurelien, dominique, ramon, shadi
14:19:49 <shadi> ack aurelien_levy
14:19:52 <shadi> ack aurelien
14:20:04 <shadi> aurelien: agree with previous comment
14:20:45 <shadi> ...goal is the report
14:20:53 <shadi> ...only different types of report
14:21:01 <shadi> ...but the process is the same
14:21:03 <shadi> ack dom
14:21:26 <shadi> dominique: difference is the results that the evaluation commissioner can expect
14:21:30 <Detlev> q+
14:21:46 <shadi> ...answer is the same, yes or no
14:21:49 <shadi> ...but commissioner may want more information
14:22:46 <shadi> ...maybe a small check to see if conform or not
14:22:54 <shadi> ...might be all the commissioner want
14:22:54 <ericvelleman> q?
14:23:08 <shadi> ...sometimes commissioner may want more information
14:23:24 <shadi> ...suggest using the term "analysis" throughout
14:23:37 <shadi> Katie: analysis and recommendations
14:24:03 <shadi> ramon: agree that processes are differences
14:24:21 <shadi> ...don't need to analyze all images if the first three failed
14:26:17 <shadi> ...structure of the document really important
14:26:50 <shawn> q+
14:26:56 <shawn> ack r
14:27:03 <shadi> aurelien: in some cases can be between detailed and in-depth report
14:27:06 <shawn> ack d
14:27:19 <shadi> detlev: unlcear what basic report really is
14:27:46 <shadi> ...if just an indication of conformance or not then should be clear
14:27:58 <ericvelleman> q?
14:28:15 <shadi> ...most cases the commissioner will want to know some more about the nature of issues
14:29:00 <shawn> q+ to say what you need in this sectino depends on how specific the following secttions are (especailly the reporting sectioN)
14:29:12 <shadi> ack me
14:29:38 <shawn> shadi: rather than 3 types, just 3: yes-no, then yes-no plus
14:29:53 <shawn> ... or else there are 15 different types
14:30:29 <shawn> s/rather than 3 types, just 3: yes-no, then yes-no plus/rather than 3 types, just 2: 1. yes-no, 2. yes-no plus/
14:31:19 <vivienne> q+
14:31:27 <shawn> ... what process do you do for 3rd-party eval for 'logo'/badge ?
14:32:24 <shadi> Katie: do a lot of conformity checking as independent evaluator
14:32:24 <shawn> ... assume people coming to you think they already have made it accessible
14:33:20 <shawn> shadi: how does that differe from someone who comes and says we want you to help us do accessibility better
14:35:02 <Detlev> q+
14:35:59 <ericvelleman> q?
14:36:31 <shawn> ack me
14:36:31 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say what you need in this sectino depends on how specific the following secttions are (especailly the reporting sectioN)
14:37:29 <shadi> shawn: what is the purpose of this and how does it influence the rest of the document
14:37:50 <shadi> ...currently reporting section doesn't address this in detail
14:38:02 <shawn> ack v
14:39:12 <shadi> vivienne: when asked for more than yes/no evaluation then often a combination of detailed and in-depth analysis
14:39:46 <shadi> ...same evaluation but feedback depends on what commissioner wants
14:40:01 <shadi> ...think two different types of reports/evaluations
14:40:29 <hbj> q+
14:41:19 <shadi> detlev: need to think if "basic evaluation" is "look until you find something" or follow the same structured approach
14:41:22 <shadi> ack d
14:41:53 <shadi> ramon: section says "some of the evaluation goals include"
14:42:08 <shadi> ...so other types of evaluations could be covered by WCAG-EM
14:42:19 <shadi> ...so reporting should be very open
14:42:56 <shadi> ack h
14:43:25 <shawn> [ shawn reminds people of Template for Accessibility Evaluation Reports http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/template.html ]
14:43:28 <shadi> helle: find it difficult to see the methodology you will develop in regard to different countries and their requirements for report
14:50:12 <jkiss> jkiss has joined #eval
15:18:49 <shadi> scribe: Ryladog
15:18:57 <shadi> Topic: Reporting Template
15:19:55 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
15:20:32 <ericvelleman> topic: revising the current reporting template
15:24:45 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
15:25:51 <Ryladog> scribe:Ryladog
15:26:36 <Ryladog> Topic: WCAG-EM Report Template
15:26:53 <Ryladog> <SH>What are the pro and cons
15:27:15 <Ryladog> <SAZ>The document has alreadyth been critiqued for leng
15:27:59 <Ryladog> <SH>The report must specify the deatils for what you did is Step 1a, for example, and then other guidance that has more options
15:28:47 <Ryladog> <VC>Use the Example Reports to give new users and idea for what is expected
15:29:51 <shawn> s/<SH>/SLH:/
15:30:04 <shawn> s/<SAZ>/SAZ:/
15:30:08 <Ryladog> EV: If we add info like add step 2 we could do that
15:30:25 <shawn> s/<VC>/VC:/
15:30:32 <Ryladog> VC: Taking into account MC comment, it is best to have example information inside the doc
15:30:49 <shawn> q+ to ask also BAD report
15:31:03 <Ryladog> SAZ: Maybe we can coolapse it into one template
15:31:14 <shawn> ack me
15:31:14 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask also BAD report
15:31:38 <Ryladog> SAZ: Lets look at what we have in the examplke reports right now
15:32:24 <Ryladog> EV: Here are three times almost the same thing. Perhaps we could combine into one for those three, based on ISO requirements we use in Netherlands
15:32:40 <Ryladog> VC: I used this reporting format in a practical sense
15:33:28 <Ryladog> VC: I used Example 3 and it actually worked, I actually found that it actually met everything that I had done in the Methodology
15:33:45 <Ryladog> VC: Eric, I think you did a great job on it
15:34:12 <Ryladog> EV: I took it out and put it back in as we had not discussed it as a group
15:34:27 <Ryladog> EV: Anyone who sees anything missing in here?
15:35:10 <Ryladog> SAZ: Give two types of evaluation, pass/fail and detailed (which comes in many flavors)
15:36:34 <shawn> q+ to say yes "Step 5.a: Provide Documentation for Each Step" rather than example
15:36:36 <shawn> ack me
15:36:36 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say yes "Step 5.a: Provide Documentation for Each Step" rather than example
15:36:40 <Ryladog> SAZ: In WCAG-EM Methodology we provide the requirements of what should be in a reports, and here is an example that you CAN use if you choose
15:38:02 <Ryladog> SH: This methodology requires that you include this information - now if want - here are two templates you could use
15:38:26 <Ryladog> SAZ: Currently we do not require a Report, on purpose
15:38:50 <Ryladog> RC: We send emails
15:39:18 <Ryladog> SH: But that could be a report
15:39:44 <Ryladog> RC: Say some of the optional components wpuld not need a report
15:40:07 <Ryladog> SAZ: Maybe we should go back to the group and ask if we want to require a Report
15:41:53 <Ryladog> EV: The requirement for a Report ()of some kind, could be added to Step 5
15:42:36 <Ryladog> SAZ: The methodology might be used in soi very many contexts
15:43:21 <Ryladog> SH: the issue is what is the minimum that is needed
15:44:44 <Ryladog> KHS: To me the minimum you need from a report is does each CS pass or fail
15:45:42 <Ryladog> SH: If you say, we followed WCAG_EM on this point, what if I want to challenge you on your statement? That is the whole point, I need to be able to compare to something youstated
15:46:18 <Ryladog> RC: My exampke, I am the owner, developer and client - I do not need a report in that instance
15:47:23 <Ryladog> SH: Do made my point, so if you state, with all hats, I followed WCAG-EM and have a logo, you actually need a repport
15:47:44 <Ryladog> SAZ: No, you dio not need a report, you need a valid accessibility statement
15:48:08 <Ryladog> SH: That says that you conform to WCAG, not WCAG-EM
15:48:44 <Ryladog> SAZ: When you want to make a public statement, then there are cvertain thiongs you need to do
15:48:55 <Ryladog> SH: But it does not say that anywhere
15:49:38 <Ryladog> SAZ: The report can be confidential, you do not have to identify where you failed in detail - just the Statement
15:50:25 <Ryladog> RC: We have some clients that do not want the conformance emplem, but I as the developer want to use this methodology as the developer
15:50:50 <Ryladog> SAZ: We should collect most known use case, and maybe in 90% of the cases we will need a repeort
15:51:59 <Ryladog> KHS: What about two levels of WCAG-EM conformance, one with a report and one without
15:52:17 <Ryladog> SAZ and EV: We will take this question to the group
15:53:52 <Ryladog> VC: 5.a: Provide Documentation for Each Step - this is to prove that you followed the methodolgy, so you must have the documentation. This implies reporting. I agree with you Shawn
15:54:47 <Ryladog> SAZ: The idea was, say you do screenshots, but you end there. You do not actually formally
15:55:23 <Ryladog> KHS: Maybe we could split up the two types of test - basic and detailed
15:55:44 <Ryladog> RC: I am thinking about the cost, not to waSTE MY CLINETS TIME
15:56:14 <Ryladog> SH: What is the minimum that you have to identify
15:56:39 <Ryladog> RC: But then we have to do all the work, which means time and money
15:56:57 <Ryladog> SH: What if the report literally takes 15 minutes'
15:57:15 <Ryladog> RC: You shpuld at least provide a list of success criteria
15:57:22 <Ryladog> SH: That is not necessary
15:58:09 <Ryladog> SH: A simple table identifying date, evaluator, scope, result (for example)
15:58:36 <Ryladog> VC: I agree, even an email would contain these points
15:58:54 <Ryladog> SH: Maybe the scope is a line in the database or something
15:59:24 <Ryladog> RC: I don't want to require a report for clinets that dont want it
16:00:07 <Ryladog> SH: But you provide feedback that covers date, evaluator, scopor, result
16:00:53 <Ryladog> Aurelien: I agree with Ramon, there are many occassions that do not need a report - when you are helping with development
16:01:22 <Ryladog> Dominique: I thinkj a report should be required
16:01:41 <Ryladog> EV: taht is the practice in the Netherlands too
16:02:19 <ericvelleman> q?
16:02:21 <Ryladog> SAZ: That is one use case. Peter Korn suggested that one development team shares with another team in the same company
16:02:26 <Ryladog> q+
16:03:12 <shawn> +1 to removing the examples and clarifying in 5.a.
16:03:18 <Ryladog> SAZ: We do have requirements for what needs to be in. Perhaps it is best to remove the Examples and provide what to provide concerning documenattipon int he provess instaed
16:03:35 <ericvelleman> q?
16:04:31 <shawn> q+ to reiterate - minimal report may be a simple e-mail with who did eval (e-mail sender), date (e-mail date), scope: URI of page(s) referred to, results: "all SC passed" OR list of errors.
16:05:45 <shawn> ack t
16:05:48 <shawn> ack tack r
16:05:51 <shawn> ack tack rack r
16:06:39 <aurelien_levy> +q
16:06:52 <shawn> ack ry
16:07:59 <Sylvie> Sylvie has joined #eval
16:08:55 <Ryladog> KHS: Documentation is a responsibility of any Accessibility Report in a government or industry context
16:09:00 <shawn> ack me
16:09:00 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to reiterate - minimal report may be a simple e-mail with who did eval (e-mail sender), date (e-mail date), scope: URI of page(s) referred to, results: "all SC
16:09:03 <Zakim> ... passed" OR list of errors.
16:10:37 <shawn> ack a
16:11:27 <ericvelleman> q?
16:11:30 <shadi> q+
16:11:34 <Ryladog> Aurelien: Reports would need to be different for variou audineces
16:12:07 <shadi> ack me
16:12:16 <Ryladog> Aurelien: You can a report for designer, for javascript developer, and the back-end developer
16:12:48 <Ryladog> RC: Reporting is for AFTER the evaluation, that is why I cannot see why we need this
16:13:23 <Ryladog> SAZ: Step 5a requires quite a bit of documentation rather than specifically reporting
16:13:48 <Ryladog> SAZ: EO may need to be review this
16:14:26 <Ryladog> SAZ: It is like Review Teams, documentation you actually need to do during
16:15:40 <Ryladog> VC: I am not real happy with that approach, many people who will use WCAG-EM will expect some kind of report because they have been paid. They want feedback. I think that we need to have a minimum reporting standard
16:16:30 <Ryladog> VC: If the federal government wants a report from me if I don';t provide a proper report that will stand up in a court of law.
16:16:42 <Ryladog> VC: I think a report is a necessity
16:18:06 <Ryladog> SAZ: BUt that is not technically part of the WCAG-EM procedure. I agree that we need strong guidance about how to prepare a report. You cannot claim conformance without documentation in WCAG-EM
16:18:51 <Ryladog> RC: Provide a Step that is determine if a Report is warranted
16:19:16 <Ryladog> VC: Cant we have reporting exmples?
16:21:08 <Ryladog> SAZ: Yes, but cant we agree that the terms "documentation" and  "reporting" are two different things, and a suggestion for another step in 5 which is talkingf about reporting which is different from documentation
16:21:34 <Ryladog> RC: The Step inself would be documented in Step 5
16:22:10 <Ryladog> RC: I always document my work through email and other docs that are not reports
16:22:29 <Ryladog> SH: Yes I think that the work 'report' is so loaded
16:23:35 <Ryladog> SAZ: We had many discussions around this problem with using that word and why it was better to use documentation
16:24:35 <Ryladog> KHS: Look to change Step 5 to 'Document the Findings'
16:25:03 <Ryladog> TOPIC: Terms
16:25:57 <Ryladog> TOPIC: Editorial refinements; overall structure and presentation of the document; alignment with other WAI documents; section numbering; linking of terms to definitions; use of terms "evaluation", "testing", "check", and "audit
16:26:15 <Ryladog> SAZ: Why are we using these terms
16:26:31 <Ryladog> SH: We are thinking about our terms too in EO
16:26:58 <Ryladog> SAZ: There was no deliberate choices, and maybe this is where we need to pick EOs brains
16:27:36 <Ryladog> SAZ: When do you check? When do you assess? Is this supported by FireFox etc.
16:27:55 <Ryladog> SAZ: Does this help or does it confuse things more?
16:28:24 <Ryladog> SH: It would be good for us to review the terms used in WCAG-EM
16:29:29 <Ryladog> SAZ: In the evaluation process - do you want to now audit these pages. In that context you are going to find there is some kind of a systematic use of our terms
16:30:27 <Ryladog> SH: So this is technical writing, not creative writing - so you should not worry about repeating words and needing to come up with many terms that mean the same thing
16:31:29 <Ryladog> VC: Some clients like the term audit, it helps them to satisfy formal requirements. Other like a less formal evaluation to test certain crtieria
16:31:40 <Ryladog> VC: They need to be used correctly
16:32:01 <Ryladog> SAZ: I think they are used mostly systematically
16:33:00 <shawn> q+ to say for example: "They can help assess if WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met..." -> "They can help determine if WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met"
16:33:14 <Ryladog> Dominique: We should use Evaluate throughout the document
16:33:39 <shawn> q+ to say also consider internationalization translations
16:33:42 <shawn> ack me
16:33:42 <Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say for example: "They can help assess if WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met..." -> "They can help determine if WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met" and to say
16:33:45 <Zakim> ... also consider internationalization translations
16:34:22 <shadi> q+
16:35:55 <Ryladog> SAZ: Using too many terms for the same thing is too confusing in a technical document - for internationalization using one term is better
16:37:04 <Ryladog> RC: WCAG says that the SC are testable - because of that we should keep the word "tested", rather than the word "evaluator"
16:37:18 <Ryladog> SAZ: You evaluate the conformance
16:37:48 <Ryladog> SAZ: For Search engine optimisation, is it best to use multiple terms?
16:38:48 <Ryladog> SH: Well, the OVERVIEW document we do want to make sure that we do that - because we want that to be the OverView page to be the landing page is Search queries
16:39:34 <Ryladog> SH: That is our goal for all WAI specs, we are making progress fir WCAG
16:39:55 <Ryladog> SAZ: That is why I am afraid of Google, they know you....
16:44:35 <shadi> s/SAZ: That is why I am afraid of Google, they know you..../
16:44:45 <Ryladog> EV: Thanks to all for participating.
16:44:54 <shadi> zakim, drop st
16:44:54 <Zakim> St_clair_1 is being disconnected
16:44:56 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG_()4:00AM has ended
16:44:56 <Zakim> Attendees were St_clair_1
16:45:11 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
16:45:11 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:45:11 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:45:11 <Ryladog> SH: We will follow up in the EO meeting with Eric and Vivienne who will be attending EO
16:45:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:45:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-eval-minutes.html trackbot
16:45:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:45:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items