IRC log of eval on 2012-11-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:50:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:50:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:50:52 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, list
14:50:52 [Zakim]
I see Team_Global(review)8:00AM, T&S_EGOV(Eurasian)4:00AM, Team_(acctmgmt)14:41Z active
14:50:54 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time are XML_PMWG()10:00AM, WF_TF()9:00AM, I18N_MLW WG(LT)9:00AM, WAI_PFWG(HTML A11Y)9:00AM, WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM, INC_(DecisionXG)10:00AM,
14:50:54 [Zakim]
... SW_RDFa()10:00AM, SYMM_TTWG()10:00AM, T&S_GLDWG()10:00AM, WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM, DIG_weekly()10:00AM, UW_UWA()9:00AM, Math_IG()10:00AM, MM_MMI(EMMA)10:00AM,
14:50:54 [Zakim]
... Team_Comm()10:00AM, Team_(CRM)9:30AM
14:51:15 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, this will be Eval
14:51:15 [Zakim]
ok, MartijnHoutepen; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:54:45 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has joined #eval
14:55:53 [MartijnHoutepen]
chair: eric
14:56:06 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
14:56:14 [Zakim]
+ +31.30.239.aaaa
14:56:17 [Zakim]
+ +31.30.239.aabb
14:56:33 [Kathy]
Kathy has joined #eval
14:56:50 [ericvelleman]
Zakim, aabb is me
14:56:50 [Zakim]
+ericvelleman; got it
14:56:54 [Zakim]
14:56:57 [ericvelleman]
14:57:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, aaaa is ericvelleman
14:57:07 [Zakim]
+ericvelleman; got it
14:57:12 [Zakim]
14:57:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.978.443.aacc
14:57:25 [ericvelleman]
14:57:34 [Kathy]
zakim, aacc is me
14:57:34 [Zakim]
+Kathy; got it
14:58:21 [ericvelleman]
Testing without Shadi ;-)
14:58:22 [Zakim]
14:58:36 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, ericvelleman.a is really me
14:58:36 [Zakim]
+MartijnHoutepen; got it
14:59:40 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #eval
15:00:26 [richard]
richard has joined #eval
15:00:30 [Zakim]
+ +49.403.17.aadd
15:01:00 [Zakim]
15:01:23 [Detlev]
Zakim, aadd
15:01:23 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'aadd', Detlev
15:01:39 [Detlev]
Zakim, aadd is Detlev
15:01:39 [Zakim]
+Detlev; got it
15:02:43 [MartijnHoutepen]
scribeNick: MartijnHoutepen
15:02:54 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:54 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:03:07 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #eval
15:03:11 [MartijnHoutepen]
topic: data from sampling survey
15:03:33 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
15:03:43 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:03:43 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:03:53 [MartijnHoutepen]
EV: the data has names in it, is someone able to anonimize?
15:03:56 [Detlev]
ack me
15:04:01 [Detlev]
15:04:14 [ericvelleman]
15:04:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.517.432.aaee
15:04:55 [MartijnHoutepen]
DF: has anybody objected?
15:05:29 [MartijnHoutepen]
EV: to make it public, i would need permission of everybody
15:05:52 [MartijnHoutepen]
KW: i will do it
15:05:55 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:05:55 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:06:02 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- Detlev
15:06:45 [MartijnHoutepen]
EV: send the data to the list when its done
15:06:54 [MartijnHoutepen]
topic: Disposition of comments
15:07:13 [MartijnHoutepen]
EV: DoC is online, together with a survey
15:07:29 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:07:42 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:08:23 [MartijnHoutepen]
EV: sent an email for question 8,9, 11
15:08:56 [korn1]
korn1 has joined #eval
15:09:02 [MartijnHoutepen]
EV: starting point for discussion, more discussion on the list
15:09:53 [MartijnHoutepen]
EV: will try to take on comments in 3 ways
15:09:55 [ericvelleman]
15:10:08 [MartijnHoutepen]
scribeNick: korn1
15:10:21 [korn1]
EV: Any questions about the survey?
15:10:43 [korn1]
EV: Next task would be to come up with a next Editor's draft.
15:11:00 [korn1]
EV: Disposition of comments (<>) has been grouped
15:11:02 [ericvelleman]
15:11:24 [korn1]
KHS: Looks good.
15:12:14 [korn1]
EV: Problem with taking out the numbering now... we wouldn't have a link between dispositoin of comments and the draft. So proposal is to keep numbering in until we've finished with most of comments. And then make the change... at the end. OK?
15:12:14 [Detlev]
agree - kep numbering in for now
15:12:26 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:13:31 [korn1]
EV: Agenda #4 - Disposition of Comments (already somewhat discussed)
15:13:45 [korn1]
EV: Plan is to do surveys on various questions, discuss in surveys, and then dispose of them.
15:14:35 [Detlev]
Christ - 192 comments..
15:14:41 [korn1]
EV: Any other questions/comments?
15:15:18 [Detlev]
bundle the little bleeders...
15:15:29 [korn1]
EV: Only got as far as section 2; but in sections 3-5 found a lot that can be grouped. So, 192 total comments, but perhaps only 50-60 unique comments/issues.
15:15:45 [korn1]
EV: Agenda point #5 - DoC ID 98.
15:16:08 [korn1]
EV: Seeking a volunteer - to work on the various terms we use (audit, evaluation, check, test, etc.)
15:16:29 [korn1]
EV: Which terms should we use, and where?
15:16:49 [korn1]
15:17:31 [MartijnHoutepen]
PK: concerned about the term audit
15:17:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
PK: seek to avoid audit
15:18:14 [korn1]
EV: Agrees, "audit" likely shouldn't appear in our document.
15:18:47 [korn1]
EV: So... any volunteer(s) to do this work? Perhaps on the list?
15:19:03 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- korn
15:19:23 [korn1]
KHS: Volunteers to do this.
15:19:27 [MartijnHoutepen]
shall we make an action ?
15:20:31 [MartijnHoutepen]
ACTION: Ryladog to research the use of terms like audit, evaluation
15:20:31 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find Ryladog. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
15:20:35 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:20:56 [korn1]
Zakim, who is here?
15:20:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ericvelleman, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kathy, MartijnHoutepen, Detlev (muted), Peter_Korn_again, +1.517.432.aaee
15:20:59 [Zakim]
On IRC I see korn1, Sarah_Swierenga, Ryladog, Detlev, Kathy, ericvelleman, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartijnHoutepen, Bim, trackbot
15:21:18 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
15:21:47 [korn1]
ACTION: Katie_Haritos-Shea to research the use of terms like audit, evaluation, etc. (regarding DoC ID 98)
15:21:47 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find Katie_Haritos-Shea. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
15:22:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.517.353.aaff
15:24:02 [korn1]
EV: Now on other issues. Through agenda faster than expected.
15:24:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, mute me
15:24:07 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:24:32 [korn1]
EV: To use our time, let's discuss exclusion criteria.
15:24:55 [ericvelleman]
15:24:58 [Ryladog]
ACTION:Ryladog to review Disposition of comments #98 Proposed resolution: Harmonize the use of Audit, Evaluation, Check, Test etc in the document. Open issue: "propose when to use audit, evaluation, check, test etc in the document"
15:24:58 [korn1]
EV: This is question #8
15:25:18 [ericvelleman]
15:25:38 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:26:02 [korn1]
15:26:51 [ericvelleman]
15:27:32 [Detlev]
ack me
15:27:37 [Detlev]
15:27:38 [korn1]
PK: There are four (A/AA) SCs that talk to a "set of web pages".
15:28:52 [korn1]
PK: Exclusion criteria might be tied to the definition of the "set".
15:29:22 [ericvelleman]
15:29:29 [korn1]
DF: Agrees with this idea.
15:29:30 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- korn
15:29:30 [korn1]
15:29:38 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- Detlev
15:30:12 [korn1]
DF: Few sites will be 100% perfect everywhere; using exlcusion is also a nice way to note some subset that is perfect.
15:30:42 [korn1]
DF: Also for sites that are in development; excluding parts that are known to be a problem is also useful.
15:30:49 [korn1]
EV: Other comments?
15:30:53 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:30:53 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:30:59 [Kathy]
I agree with Detlev
15:30:59 [ericvelleman]
15:31:28 [korn1]
EV: IF we all agree with this, this is a fundamental thing. We need to be thoughtful about this.
15:31:37 [Detlev]
15:31:46 [Detlev]
ack me
15:32:58 [korn1]
DF: There are multiple use cases for exclusion.
15:33:04 [Detlev]
zakim, mute me
15:33:04 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:33:11 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:33:11 [korn1]
EV: All in agreement?
15:33:20 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:33:22 [ericvelleman]
15:33:27 [Detlev]
we don't have that many people on the call today...
15:33:39 [korn1]
MH: If we want to allow these exclusions, we need to be very careful - to not make it some sort of excuse option.
15:34:00 [Kathy]
15:34:05 [korn1]
MH: So it is probably easier to not allow them, but if we really want them, then we need to describe very thoroughly how to do so.
15:34:08 [Kathy]
ack me
15:34:19 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, mute me
15:34:19 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:34:47 [Detlev]
15:34:55 [korn1]
KW: This mechanism can also give people clarity on what parts are / aren't accessible.
15:35:24 [ericvelleman]
15:35:27 [Detlev]
ack me
15:36:30 [korn1]
DF: Not talking about a final site (e.g. a seal of approval on one section, another not), but rather about the use case during development/design phase.
15:36:57 [korn1]
DF: The real question about exclusion's use is for a final conformance claim.
15:37:14 [ericvelleman]
15:37:19 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:37:19 [korn1]
DF: But during design/development, excluding some parts is very useful.
15:37:48 [Detlev]
zakim, mute me
15:37:48 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:38:02 [korn1]
DF: Note too that we don't have as many folks on the call as usual; we should get more feedback before coming to a final decision on this.
15:38:13 [Sarah_Swierenga]
15:38:14 [korn1]
15:38:21 [ericvelleman]
15:38:56 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:38:58 [korn1]
SS: Concerned about opening this window for people using the methodology to select aspects of their sites/apps for going for full conformance, while identifying other areas as "we hope to get there, may not ever get there"
15:39:00 [korn1]
15:39:28 [korn1]
SS: Thought the methodology as drafted now did account for some of this - the whole sub-parts discussion. But not sure we want to go down this path.
15:39:38 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- Sarah
15:39:47 [Detlev]
yes, Eric
15:39:53 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:40:08 [korn1]
EV: This is primarily about opening up the methodology to other use cases.
15:40:17 [korn1]
SS: Want to make sure this doesn't get hijacked.
15:40:21 [Mike_Elledge]
15:40:29 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:41:06 [korn1]
Zakim, who is talking?
15:41:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
15:41:07 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:41:12 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:41:14 [Zakim]
Detlev was already muted, Detlev
15:41:17 [Zakim]
korn1, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Peter_Korn_again (75%), ericvelleman (9%), Katie_Haritos-Shea (5%)
15:42:50 [Detlev]
Peter: We need a way for sites to take stock of what works and what doesn't independent of conformsnce claims
15:43:11 [MartijnHoutepen]
q+ /me to point to question 1 in the questionnaire
15:43:14 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:43:15 [korn1]
PK: We have a long-standing issue for large sites & web apps that aren't perfect - but need to report on what is (and isn't) accessible.
15:43:17 [ericvelleman]
15:43:40 [korn1]
PK: For those situations you can't make a 100% perfect conformance claim; and exclusion may be a useful tool as part of noting this lack of perfection.
15:44:12 [korn1]
ME: See Question #1 in questionnaire, DoC ID 4 "Scope of WCAG-EM"
15:44:24 [korn1]
ME: This is correlated to the situation that DF is describing.
15:44:27 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
15:44:27 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:44:31 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- /me
15:44:38 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- korn
15:45:54 [korn1]
ME: This issue is one that can be resolved by there being clarity in claims that are made for a website / compliance. So long as the entity that is responsible for the site states the particular limitations to the accessibility claims... we are dependent upon honesty.
15:46:35 [Ryladog]
15:46:48 [korn1]
ME: Some voluntary declarations from some entities provide little information; other cases you get a tremendous amount of detail.
15:47:09 [korn1]
ME: So the key question is providing sufficient information.
15:47:39 [korn1]
EV: Claim and Scope are two distinct issues.
15:48:10 [korn1]
EV: See at least another use case coming out of these discussions.
15:48:29 [korn1]
EV: Getting more clarity on what is claimed is perhaps more than just a question/topic of scope, but also for question #5.
15:48:30 [ericvelleman]
15:48:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- Mike
15:49:06 [korn1]
KHS: Also really have to clarify the difference between a scoping claim relative to this methodology.
15:49:14 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- Ryladog
15:49:56 [korn1]
EV: Invites everyone to look at survey question #8 about exclusion. Also in the disposition of comments.
15:50:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
regrets: Alistair, Liz, Shadi, Moe
15:50:20 [korn1]
EV: now to final agenda item. Any other issues?
15:51:18 [korn1]
EV: Hopes to launch a new survey by Monday morning. Will then discuss this survey in the next call (and the Monday survey in the call after that)
15:51:30 [Detlev]
15:51:33 [korn1]
EV: Thanks to all. Closes call.
15:51:35 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:51:37 [Zakim]
15:51:38 [Zakim]
15:51:39 [Zakim]
- +1.517.432.aaee
15:51:40 [Zakim]
15:51:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:51:42 [Mike_Elledge]
15:51:47 [Mike_Elledge]
15:51:51 [Zakim]
- +1.517.353.aaff
15:52:34 [Zakim]
15:52:35 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has left #eval
15:52:44 [Zakim]
15:52:57 [Zakim]
15:52:58 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
15:52:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were +31.30.239.aaaa, +31.30.239.aabb, ericvelleman, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.978.443.aacc, Kathy, MartijnHoutepen, +49.403.17.aadd, Peter_Korn_again, Detlev,
15:52:58 [Zakim]
... +1.517.432.aaee, +1.517.353.aaff
15:54:18 [MartijnHoutepen]
trackbot, end meeting
15:54:18 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
15:54:18 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:54:26 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:54:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
15:54:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
15:54:51 [MartijnHoutepen]
rrsagent, bye
15:55:01 [MartijnHoutepen]
rrsagent, please leave
15:56:00 [MartijnHoutepen]
rrsagent, stop