IRC log of eval on 2013-02-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:53:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:53:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/07-eval-irc
14:53:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:53:56 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
14:53:57 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:57 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:53:58 [trackbot]
Date: 07 February 2013
14:54:06 [ericvelleman]
My headphone is in a knot, just a moment
14:55:41 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
14:55:48 [Zakim]
+ericvelleman
14:56:15 [ericvelleman]
And now I am the first participant in this conference... for 1,30 euro per minute aaarhg
14:56:49 [Kathy]
Kathy has joined #eval
14:57:21 [Zakim]
+MartijnHoutepen
14:57:35 [Zakim]
+Kathy
14:58:57 [Zakim]
+Shadi
15:00:00 [Liz]
Liz has joined #eval
15:00:34 [agarrison]
agarrison has joined #eval
15:00:39 [Zakim]
+Liz
15:00:41 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #eval
15:00:58 [agarrison]
Hi, running a bit late as I am having to use a colleagues computer
15:01:07 [korn]
korn has joined #eval
15:01:19 [Zakim]
+Detlev
15:01:44 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:01:44 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:01:53 [Detlev]
fine
15:02:02 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:02 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:02:06 [Detlev]
ack me
15:02:18 [Zakim]
+Katie_Haritos_Shea
15:02:21 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:02:24 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, what is on the agenda?
15:02:24 [shadi]
scribe: Detlev
15:02:24 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:02:25 [Zakim]
5. make sampling optional [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:02:25 [Zakim]
6. definition of random [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:02:25 [Zakim]
7. size of sample [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:02:25 [Zakim]
8. other issues [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:02:25 [Zakim]
9. csun [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:02:28 [Detlev]
scribe: Detlev
15:02:34 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, please clear the agenda?
15:02:34 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:02:55 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #eval
15:02:55 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:02:55 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
15:03:04 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is agarrison
15:03:04 [Zakim]
+agarrison; got it
15:03:07 [shadi]
scribe: agarrison
15:03:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
agenda+ new editor draft
15:03:26 [MartijnHoutepen]
agenda+ walkthrough and open issues
15:03:40 [MartijnHoutepen]
agenda+ other issues
15:03:45 [shadi]
clear agenda
15:03:51 [MartijnHoutepen]
ok
15:03:53 [Zakim]
+[Oracle]
15:03:55 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, please clear the agenda?
15:03:55 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:03:56 [korn]
Zakim, Oracle has Peter_Korn
15:03:57 [Zakim]
+Peter_Korn; got it
15:04:03 [MartijnHoutepen]
agenda+ new editor draft
15:04:09 [MartijnHoutepen]
agenda+ walkthrough and open issues
15:04:17 [MartijnHoutepen]
agenda+ other issues
15:04:19 [agarrison]
Detlev were there items left from the questionnaire
15:04:26 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, what is on the agenda?
15:04:26 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:04:28 [Zakim]
1. new editor draft [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:04:28 [Zakim]
2. walkthrough and open issues [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:04:28 [Zakim]
3. other issues [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:04:44 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:04:44 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:04:51 [agarrison]
Eric Welcome
15:04:52 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
15:04:52 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "new editor draft" taken up [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:05:08 [agarrison]
Eric we are getting closer to a new public draft
15:05:22 [agarrison]
Eric now there is enough flesh for a trial run
15:05:24 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207
15:05:52 [agarrison]
Eric please look at the document - there are remarks in the document where changes have been made
15:06:15 [agarrison]
Eric - some of the remarks are objections, others just comments
15:06:43 [agarrison]
Eric - There were a lot of remarks in Survey 8 - so changes have been incorporated
15:06:55 [agarrison]
Eric - there are links to the survey from the document
15:06:58 [Detlev]
ciuld you copy urls to Questionnaires, once again? - sorry
15:07:02 [Zakim]
+Mike_Elledge
15:07:08 [agarrison]
Eric - running through the document
15:07:29 [agarrison]
Eric - there are a few notes, editor notes, notes for discussion etc
15:07:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq8/results
15:07:57 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
15:08:04 [agarrison]
Eric - look at the changes and see if you agree - we could do another survey to capture peoples responses
15:08:26 [agarrison]
Eric - DOC has not had any changes, so this will be done at a later date
15:08:27 [ericvelleman]
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130128&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130207
15:08:46 [agarrison]
Eric - this is diff marked, so you can see what has been done in the past weeks
15:09:14 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:09:15 [agarrison]
Eric - changes are explained above or belong the changed blocks
15:09:49 [agarrison]
Eric - Red is removed, Green is what replaced what was removed, and Yellow is brand new
15:10:09 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, take up next
15:10:09 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "walkthrough and open issues" taken up [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:10:14 [agarrison]
Eric - Agenda point 3, walkthough
15:10:31 [agarrison]
Eric - for the current form I shall send round a survey
15:11:10 [agarrison]
Shadi - Maybe we could try to combine this with the survey for approval for publication
15:11:26 [agarrison]
Shadi - this would allow people to provide comments
15:11:35 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1
15:11:36 [agarrison]
Eric - this is still a draft
15:11:44 [Mike_Elledge]
+1
15:11:58 [agarrison]
Eric - shall we do an approval for publication survey?
15:12:27 [agarrison]
Eric - we could send this round and asking for feedback by next week
15:12:34 [agarrison]
Peter - is this long enough
15:12:53 [agarrison]
Shadi - should be, a little tight but it would be ready before CSUN
15:13:14 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:13:14 [agarrison]
Shadi - with a final round of work it could be done before CSUN
15:13:37 [agarrison]
Eric - open issues diagram, and uniform accessibility support
15:14:06 [agarrison]
Eric - new diagram created by group - but there were a few remarks about the arrows in the diagram
15:14:39 [agarrison]
Eric - the current diagram is the one produced by Shadi
15:14:59 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:15:03 [agarrison]
Eric - one comment was that in reporting we should only have one arrow going forward
15:15:20 [agarrison]
Shadi - looking for a url for both images
15:15:24 [MartijnHoutepen]
The old: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207#procedure
15:15:41 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:16:49 [Kathy]
I have it
15:16:50 [agarrison]
Shadi - come back to this point, and I shall try to find them
15:17:10 [agarrison]
Eric - Uniform accessibility support
15:17:29 [MartijnHoutepen]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq7/results#x2586
15:17:35 [agarrison]
Eric - on the survey number 7 - 12 people answered and 2 rejected it
15:17:57 [ericvelleman]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207#step4b
15:18:00 [agarrison]
Eric - we could drop the sentence requiring the uniform accessibility support
15:18:11 [ericvelleman]
“For example, if one part of a website is accessible using one set of tools that is different from a set of tools that is needed to access another part of the same website, then the website is effectively not accessible for some users. Accessibility support needs to be uniform throughout a single website.”
15:18:13 [agarrison]
Eric - this is the url to step 4b
15:18:32 [korn]
q+
15:18:51 [agarrison]
Eric - we could try to repair the sentence
15:19:02 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:19:04 [MoeKraft]
MoeKraft has joined #eval
15:19:04 [agarrison]
Eric - we could come back to it in the next version of the doc
15:19:08 [Zakim]
+MoeKraft
15:19:17 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- korn
15:19:22 [agarrison]
Peter - As written this does not make sense
15:19:50 [korn]
q-
15:20:28 [agarrison]
Peter - first question - what constitutes a set of tools
15:21:05 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
15:21:08 [agarrison]
Eric - finger on the right place
15:21:25 [agarrison]
Eric - Maybe we should put this off to a later stage
15:21:31 [Detlev]
q+
15:21:34 [Zakim]
+Sarah_Swierenga
15:21:40 [agarrison]
Eric - We could add this as an issue to come back to
15:21:40 [korn]
Q+
15:21:46 [Detlev]
ack me
15:21:51 [agarrison]
Eric - For the moment we could drop this sentence
15:22:37 [agarrison]
Detlev - It could read as the set of tools we use to analyse the content, it also could be read as if the tools where a screen reader
15:22:54 [MartijnHoutepen]
q+
15:23:00 [agarrison]
Detlev - You may not use any tools
15:23:13 [agarrison]
Eric - Would it be ok to drop this until later
15:23:42 [shadi]
q+
15:23:43 [agarrison]
Shadi - the intent this was evaluation tools
15:23:56 [shadi]
s/evaluation/user
15:24:25 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- korn
15:24:29 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:24:29 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:24:30 [agarrison]
Shadi - lets assume its user tools i.e screen readers
15:25:06 [agarrison]
Peter - But,different AT has imperfect support for certain things
15:25:29 [agarrison]
Peter - so if you use two different screen readers you might get two different things
15:25:34 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:25:45 [agarrison]
Peter - It would cause many issues
15:26:01 [korn]
q+
15:26:17 [shadi]
ack me
15:26:19 [agarrison]
Martijn - It would have to work for types of assistive technology
15:26:21 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
15:26:21 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:26:39 [agarrison]
Shadi - at the F2F we started to delve into this issue
15:27:16 [agarrison]
Shadi - e.g. you have a large website and you start to buy pieces of content from different suppliers - but this could be difficult
15:27:39 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:27:41 [agarrison]
Shadi - difficult in terms of getting support from all ATs for all parts
15:28:09 [agarrison]
Peter - the problem is where the granularity is the website or the web page
15:28:24 [Detlev]
if things aren't attainable in practice, should they be mandated by WCAG-EM? I think not.
15:28:28 [korn]
q-
15:28:38 [agarrison]
Peter - it would be fine to advise when possible use a single tool and be uniform, but don't require it
15:28:48 [agarrison]
Eric - would it be ok to take out the sentence
15:29:06 [agarrison]
Peter - take the sentence out or take out both sentences
15:29:17 [Detlev]
agree
15:29:18 [agarrison]
Eric - I meant take out the last part
15:29:24 [ericvelleman]
Proposal to take out: "“For example, if one part of a website is accessible using one set of tools that is different from a set of tools that is needed to access another part of the same website, then the website is effectively not accessible for some users. Accessibility support needs to be uniform throughout a single website.”"
15:29:42 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1 and maybe include peter's advise
15:29:48 [ericvelleman]
And open issue to discuss this for later version
15:29:50 [Ryladog]
+1
15:29:55 [agarrison]
Eric - Take out and place as an issue for later discussion
15:30:12 [Tim]
Tim has joined #eval
15:30:29 [ericvelleman]
ISSUE: discuss uniform accessibility
15:30:29 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-12 - Discuss uniform accessibility; please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/issues/12/edit>.
15:30:41 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:31:12 [Detlev]
Alistair: why open up an issue if it has just been discussed - seems entirly unrealistic, so no need to re-discuss
15:31:18 [Ryladog]
q+
15:32:15 [agarrison]
Alistair - are we not just going to have the same discussion when we discuss it again
15:32:32 [agarrison]
Katy - we do need to discuss it later
15:32:37 [korn]
q+
15:33:10 [agarrison]
Katy - some of the problems which peter brought up need to be discussed,
15:33:35 [agarrison]
Katy - we may need to bring in maturity levels when we use certain technologies
15:33:39 [agarrison]
q+
15:33:49 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- Ryla
15:34:15 [agarrison]
Peter - note in the issue that we might say this is a recommendation not a requirement
15:34:20 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- korn
15:34:25 [agarrison]
Peter - it is not just maturity
15:34:32 [agarrison]
q-
15:34:50 [korn]
q-
15:34:57 [agarrison]
Peter - if I use something which used to work, but does not work now why should I be punished
15:35:12 [agarrison]
Eric - issue to be discussed later
15:35:18 [Detlev]
fine
15:35:21 [agarrison]
Eric - take line out
15:35:23 [Ryladog]
+1
15:35:27 [Kathy]
fine to take it out
15:35:33 [agarrison]
Shadi - two lines
15:35:36 [agarrison]
Fine
15:35:49 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1
15:36:21 [agarrison]
Eric - Objection to publication - writing error, but this was editorial
15:36:31 [agarrison]
Eric - so just the diagram
15:36:58 [Kathy]
ack me
15:37:20 [agarrison]
Shadi - is it ok Kathy to send the diagram to the list
15:37:47 [agarrison]
Eric - a number of people were ok with the current diagram
15:37:58 [korn]
q+
15:38:14 [shadi]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Feb/0004.html
15:38:14 [Detlev]
q+
15:38:16 [agarrison]
Eric - the issue was about arrows - do we need arrows everywhere?
15:38:55 [agarrison]
Peter - I like the new one much better
15:39:11 [agarrison]
Kathy - we had talked about showing interaction between different steps
15:39:46 [shadi]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Feb/att-0004/W3C-Graphic.jpg
15:39:46 [agarrison]
Kathy - things can get complex, but the diagram should show that at any stage you can go back
15:39:59 [agarrison]
Kathy - the question is what do we want to show
15:40:03 [Ryladog]
q+
15:40:16 [Bim]
Bim has joined #eval
15:40:35 [agarrison]
Peter - the issue with the old one was the size of the text. The waterfall design might be a good design.
15:40:39 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:40:39 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
15:40:42 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:40:49 [shadi]
q- k
15:40:50 [korn]
q-
15:40:50 [Detlev]
ack me
15:41:16 [agarrison]
Detlev - agree second looks better, but a waterfall idea might be better.
15:41:20 [Tim]
step 5 leads directly into step 1 again - what happens if we dont want to do that?
15:41:29 [agarrison]
Detlev - this looks a little like a quality circle
15:41:55 [agarrison]
Detlev - we are really just looking at a website at a point in time, so a waterfall might be good
15:42:06 [agarrison]
Detlev - arrows are not so important
15:42:32 [agarrison]
Katy - agree, I like second one, but waterfall might be best
15:42:35 [Detlev]
zakim, mute me
15:42:35 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:42:39 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:42:43 [MartijnHoutepen]
q- ryla
15:42:48 [shadi]
q+
15:42:55 [shadi]
ack me
15:43:14 [agarrison]
Shadi - What if we took out yellow arrow for now
15:43:49 [agarrison]
Shadi - it would be good to have something which looks better than this - before getting a new proposal
15:44:11 [agarrison]
Eric - we could use the new diagram until we find another one
15:44:18 [Detlev]
it will look damaged if we remove the yellow arrow...
15:44:28 [agarrison]
Eric - Peter you propose to complete a waterfall design
15:44:42 [agarrison]
Shadi - take out the yellow arrow
15:45:15 [Kathy]
q+
15:45:41 [agarrison]
Eric - Solution for now - choose new, await further designs
15:45:44 [Kathy]
ack me
15:46:56 [agarrison]
Kathy - are we going back to one Shadi produced, but we could quickly create a highbred between the old and new
15:47:13 [agarrison]
Shadi - which one do we go with now - old or new?
15:47:13 [Detlev]
use new one for now
15:48:02 [Mike_Elledge]
+1
15:48:06 [Ryladog]
+1
15:48:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1
15:48:07 [agarrison]
Eric - replace old with new for now, then await new entrants into the diagram design competitions
15:48:08 [Detlev]
fine
15:48:32 [agarrison]
Peter - keep the one Shadi made, as it is a waterfall
15:48:52 [agarrison]
Peter - I've finished the diagram and will sent it out to the list
15:49:39 [agarrison]
Eric - I shall make a survey to see approval for publication - open for a week until next telecon
15:49:51 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:49:51 [Sarah_Swierenga]
+1
15:49:52 [agarrison]
Eric - is this ok, it seems we have already agreed
15:49:55 [Ryladog]
+1
15:49:59 [Kathy]
+1
15:50:01 [ericvelleman]
+1
15:50:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1
15:50:08 [Liz]
+1
15:50:13 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:50:13 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
15:50:18 [agarrison]
Shadi - I can work with you on that
15:50:28 [agarrison]
Eric - final minutes
15:50:40 [agarrison]
Eric - Peter, how far are you
15:50:58 [agarrison]
Peter - email sent
15:51:47 [Kathy]
I can see it
15:51:51 [agarrison]
Peter - it has bigger text, and the arrow heads are not obscured. Steps are also included
15:51:55 [Sarah_Swierenga]
i can see it too
15:52:13 [agarrison]
Peter - it is in as a PNG
15:52:16 [MartijnHoutepen]
me too
15:53:18 [Kathy]
i can do that
15:53:36 [Kathy]
I would like to see that Peter
15:53:42 [MoeKraft]
definitely agree the arrows need cleaning, they are overlapping each other.
15:53:45 [agarrison]
Peter - it is not pretty, but the content is what needs to be debated
15:53:56 [Mike_Elledge]
Let's put them all there.
15:54:04 [shadi]
:)
15:54:14 [agarrison]
Eric - what should we do, keep old, take new or take Peter's
15:54:39 [Detlev]
I caan prettify it
15:54:39 [Kathy]
ack me
15:54:40 [agarrison]
Shadi - Peter could you work on this this week
15:54:44 [agarrison]
Peter - No
15:55:13 [agarrison]
Kathy - I could make the arrows a bit prettier
15:55:34 [agarrison]
Peter - send me a mail and I will respond
15:55:52 [Mike_Elledge]
have to go...bye!
15:55:56 [Zakim]
-Mike_Elledge
15:56:05 [agarrison]
Eric - Shadi, we will leave you graphic
15:56:24 [Liz]
bye
15:56:42 [agarrison]
Shadi - I shall request that the other working groups gloss over the graphic for now, with the idea that they will get a new graphic in the future
15:57:01 [agarrison]
Shadi - This should be an action, which Kathy looks like she has taken on
15:57:35 [agarrison]
Eric - Survey launched today, or tomorrow - then we could see if we could get out a working draft
15:57:45 [agarrison]
Eric- the working draft would allow a trial
15:57:59 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, take up next
15:57:59 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "other issues" taken up [from MartijnHoutepen]
15:58:03 [agarrison]
Eric - a trial would generate a lot of useful feedback
15:58:17 [agarrison]
Shadi - we will not be meeting at CSUN
15:58:29 [agarrison]
Shadi - there were not enough people
15:58:37 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:58:42 [agarrison]
Eric - any further items
15:58:46 [agarrison]
Eric - no
15:58:49 [Zakim]
-Liz
15:59:00 [Detlev]
bye!
15:59:01 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:59:03 [Zakim]
-MoeKraft
15:59:10 [Zakim]
-Detlev
15:59:11 [Zakim]
-MartijnHoutepen
15:59:11 [Zakim]
-ericvelleman
15:59:11 [Sarah_Swierenga]
bye
15:59:19 [Zakim]
-Katie_Haritos_Shea
15:59:20 [Zakim]
-agarrison
15:59:21 [Zakim]
-Shadi
15:59:24 [shadi]
tracknot, end meeting
15:59:25 [Zakim]
-[Oracle]
15:59:26 [Zakim]
-Sarah_Swierenga
15:59:27 [Kathy]
kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com
15:59:34 [Zakim]
-Kathy
15:59:34 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
15:59:34 [Zakim]
Attendees were ericvelleman, MartijnHoutepen, Kathy, Shadi, Liz, Detlev, Katie_Haritos_Shea, agarrison, Peter_Korn, Mike_Elledge, MoeKraft, Sarah_Swierenga
15:59:53 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has left #eval
16:00:19 [Bim]
Bim has joined #eval
16:12:24 [korn]
korn has left #eval
18:51:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
18:51:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/07-eval-irc
18:51:56 [shadi]
trackbot, make logs world
18:51:56 [trackbot]
Sorry, shadi, I don't understand 'trackbot, make logs world'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
18:52:12 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
18:52:17 [shadi]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:52:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/07-eval-minutes.html shadi
18:52:19 [shadi]
rrsagent, make logs world
18:52:31 [shadi]
rrsagent, bye
18:52:31 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items