14:45:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:45:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/14-eval-irc
14:45:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:45:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eval
14:45:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3825
14:45:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
14:45:19 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:45:19 <trackbot> Date: 14 February 2013
14:45:51 <shadi> zakim, this is eval
14:45:51 <Zakim> shadi, I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be eval".
14:45:58 <MartijnHoutepen> Zakim, what's on the agenda?
14:45:58 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:50:46 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
14:50:53 <Zakim> + +1.313.322.aaaa
14:51:51 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
14:56:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:56:16 <Liz> Liz has joined #eval
14:56:19 <Vivienne> zakim, IPcaller is me
14:56:19 <Zakim> +Vivienne; got it
14:57:05 <Zakim> + +1.301.975.aabb
14:57:06 <Vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:57:07 <Zakim> Vivienne should now be muted
14:57:51 <Liz> Zakim; aabb is Liz
14:58:09 <Zakim> +Shadi
14:58:20 <Vivienne> hi shadi
14:58:40 <Vivienne> ack me
14:58:52 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #eval
14:59:09 <Vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:59:09 <Zakim> Vivienne should now be muted
14:59:56 <Zakim> + +31.30.239.aacc
15:00:07 <MartijnHoutepen> Zakim, aacc is me
15:00:08 <Zakim> +MartijnHoutepen; got it
15:00:15 <MartijnHoutepen> Zakim, mute me
15:00:15 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:00:34 <Zakim> + +49.404.318.aadd
15:00:54 <Detlev> Zakim, aadd is Detlev
15:00:54 <Zakim> +Detlev; got it
15:01:37 <Vivienne> zakim, aabb is Liz
15:01:37 <Vivienne> ack me
15:01:37 <Vivienne> zakim, unmute me
15:01:37 <Zakim> +Liz; got it
15:01:38 <Zakim> Vivienne should no longer be muted
15:02:14 <Vivienne> zakim, mute me
15:02:14 <Zakim> Vivienne should now be muted
15:02:23 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.313.322.aaaa, Vivienne (muted), Liz, Shadi, MartijnHoutepen (muted), Detlev
15:02:33 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
15:02:55 <MartijnHoutepen> ack me
15:03:04 <Zakim> + +1.517.432.aaee
15:03:07 <Zakim> + +1.510.334.aaff
15:03:09 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has joined #eval
15:03:10 <shadi> zakim, aaaa is Mike
15:03:10 <Zakim> +Mike; got it
15:03:25 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #eval
15:03:30 <Vivienne> zakim, unmute me
15:03:32 <Zakim> Vivienne should no longer be muted
15:03:55 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:04:16 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike, Vivienne, Liz, Shadi, MartijnHoutepen, Detlev, +1.517.432.aaee, +1.510.334.aaff, Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:04:23 <Zakim> + +31.30.695.aagg
15:04:47 <Zakim> + +1.978.443.aahh
15:04:54 <Kathy> zakim, aahh is me
15:04:54 <Zakim> +Kathy; got it
15:04:55 <shadi> zakim, aaee is Sarah
15:04:56 <Zakim> +Sarah; got it
15:05:02 <MartijnHoutepen> Zakim, aagg is ericvelleman
15:05:02 <Zakim> +ericvelleman; got it
15:05:10 <Detlev> Zakim. mute me
15:05:14 <shadi> zakim, aaff is Peter
15:05:14 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:14 <Zakim> +Peter; got it
15:05:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike, Vivienne, Liz, Shadi, MartijnHoutepen, Detlev, Sarah, Peter, Katie_Haritos-Shea, ericvelleman, Kathy
15:05:19 <Detlev> Zakim,mute me
15:05:19 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
15:05:46 <MartijnHoutepen> zakim, mute me
15:05:46 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:06:14 <shadi> scribe: Sarah
15:06:22 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
15:06:22 <Zakim> Kathy should now be muted
15:07:14 <shadi> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Feb/0016.html
15:08:33 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/WCAG-EM20130208/results
15:08:41 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results
15:09:48 <shadi> ack me
15:10:19 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #eval
15:10:48 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: first internal survey, we don't need to fill in both surveys
15:11:16 <Zakim> +MoeKraft
15:11:55 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: objection from Samuel - does not object to idea of adding a note; can be discussed after public review; editor note will be added to step 5.c
15:12:45 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: text from current working draft will be used for the public comments draft
15:12:53 <shadi> [Review Note: Eval TF is particularly looking for feedback on this section.]
15:13:02 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1
15:13:08 <ericvelleman> +1
15:13:13 <MartijnHoutepen> +1
15:13:22 <Liz> +1
15:13:26 <Vivienne> _1
15:13:26 <MoeKraft> +1
15:13:29 <Detlev> plus one
15:13:32 <Kathy> +1
15:13:43 <Vivienne> +1
15:13:45 <Sarah_Swierenga> katie: +1
15:13:46 <Mike_Elledge> +1
15:14:15 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: +1
15:14:25 <shadi> kathy: +1
15:14:47 <ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results
15:15:08 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: most responses accept as is
15:15:24 <shadi> [[I think there is still sometimes ambiguity in the term WCAG 2.0 Techniques, which sometimes is used to refer to any technique that meets a WCAG success criterion and sometimes to refer to the techniques published in the Techniques document. It is not necessary for this draft, but at some point please make a review and use consistent terminology to distinguish those two meanings. You may need to define those two terms in your document to distinguish them.]]
15:15:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: conformance for particular situations - not sure what we should do with this one; will be discussed in wcag group tonight
15:16:35 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: lorraine asks for a review, so shadi and eric will look for obvious ambiguities and adjust wording for next draft
15:16:46 <shadi> s/lorraine/loretta
15:16:56 <ericvelleman> q?
15:16:57 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: proposed solution ok?
15:17:10 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1
15:18:13 <shadi> shadi: propose Eric and Shadi to take a quick pass at catching obvious ambiguity, then do a more thorough review of terminology before the next publication
15:18:16 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1
15:18:21 <ericvelleman> +1
15:18:22 <MartijnHoutepen> +1
15:18:26 <Vivienne> +1
15:18:28 <Detlev> fine
15:18:29 <Mike_Elledge> +1
15:18:38 <Liz> +1
15:18:46 <MoeKraft> +1
15:18:47 <Kathy> +1
15:19:12 <ericvelleman> q?
15:19:21 <korn> korn has joined #eval
15:19:40 <Vivienne> q+
15:19:53 <Vivienne> ack me
15:20:00 <ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results
15:20:09 <ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/WCAG-EM20130208/results
15:20:28 <Sarah_Swierenga> vivienne: looking for samuel's actual comment
15:21:11 <Zakim> +[Oracle]
15:21:22 <Zakim> -Peter
15:21:25 <Kathy> I am still working on an updated version
15:21:32 <korn> Zakim, Oracle has Peter_Korn
15:21:32 <Zakim> +Peter_Korn; got it
15:21:38 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: evaluation flow graphic
15:21:43 <Kathy> q+
15:21:52 <ericvelleman> q?
15:21:52 <Kathy> ack me
15:22:48 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: using waterfall diagram that Peter came up with, and taking colorful style from previous one. also, trying to show the interaction without having it be overwhelming
15:23:34 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: we need to have final version by tuesday for approval process
15:24:10 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: deadline for external comments is today
15:24:13 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:24:30 <shadi> [[Samuel's comments resent: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Feb/0022.html]]
15:24:31 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: final version for public review is due tuesday
15:25:08 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: will try to have revised diagram by saturday
15:26:09 <Detlev> fine
15:26:12 <MartijnHoutepen> +1
15:26:13 <Mike_Elledge> +1
15:26:14 <Vivienne> that sounds fine to me
15:26:15 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: proposal to use new diagram if everybody agrees. otherwise we will use the existing diagram if there are issues with the new one
15:26:16 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1
15:26:18 <Kathy> +1
15:26:21 <Liz> +1
15:26:23 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
15:26:23 <Zakim> Kathy should now be muted
15:26:24 <MoeKraft> +1
15:26:49 <ericvelleman> +1
15:27:56 <ericvelleman> q?
15:28:49 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: please fill out the survey - need to have comments if there are concerns
15:30:57 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: still concerned about sampling template and not being able to test web apps in their entirety
15:31:39 <shadi> q+
15:32:14 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: should there be something other than a total conformance claims for cases where you can't test everything, e.g. web applications and software? a conformance (or another word) claim (or another word), like 'to our knowledge'?
15:32:31 <shadi> ack me
15:32:34 <ericvelleman> q?
15:32:38 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: want this to be helpful for others who haven't worked on the website
15:33:18 <korn> q+
15:33:33 <Zakim> -Vivienne
15:33:42 <ericvelleman> q?
15:33:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: agrees that this a bigger issue than this methodology which is bound to WCAG - we are not chartered or scoped to address this issue. inherent aspect of wcag, that the methodology applies to the entire scope of the website
15:34:21 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: we will not be able to address it in this draft, even though this is an important issue
15:34:30 <ericvelleman> q?
15:34:53 <ericvelleman> q+
15:35:11 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: want to avoid the language, 'alternative to a conformance claim'. this is not an alternative. really likes the phrase, 'evaluation findings.'
15:35:14 <MartijnHoutepen> q- korn
15:36:25 <ericvelleman> q-
15:36:32 <MartijnHoutepen> q- eric
15:36:34 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: is not recommending that this issue hold up the public working draft
15:36:46 <Detlev> q+
15:36:59 <Vivienne> Sorry guys, I can't get back on the call
15:37:11 <ericvelleman> q?
15:37:13 <Detlev> ack me
15:37:21 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: can you really do a conformance claim, maybe to the 'best of our knowledge' would be good to do in the next version of the working doc.
15:37:36 <shadi> s/shadi/eric
15:37:41 <shadi> zakim, mute me
15:37:41 <Zakim> Shadi should now be muted
15:37:57 <shadi> q+
15:38:33 <Vivienne> zakim keeps tellingme my passcode is not valid!
15:38:45 <Sarah_Swierenga> detlev: all or nothing evaluation methodology is difficult. evaluation findings is usually more the case. we don't place ourselves outside of the practical side of this
15:39:41 <shadi> ack me
15:39:50 <Detlev> zakim, mute me
15:39:50 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
15:39:53 <Sarah_Swierenga> detlev: using conformance claim, the risk is that people will downplay the risks, and impact the credibility of the claim
15:40:12 <korn> q+
15:41:25 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: two aspects - peter - you can't evaluate everything - scoping issue; detlev - tolerance aspect - websites will typically have some oversight or issue; maybe they need to be addressed slightly differently
15:42:49 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: developers probably can't make conformance claims. they have more knowledge, but all apps have bugs. wacg is structured around conformance claims, but nothing is ever perfect, so a conformance claim approach is problematic.
15:42:50 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:43:05 <korn> q-
15:43:58 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:43:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: this is not only scoping or complexity, but a mixture of both. could we put this as a action item - to explore 'evaluation finding' and challenges of making claims on dynamic, complex apps
15:44:34 <shadi> ack me
15:44:42 <Detlev> thumbs up for that issue!
15:44:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: will make this part of the "issue" list
15:45:36 <Detlev> Zakim, mute me
15:45:36 <Zakim> Detlev was already muted, Detlev
15:45:59 <korn> Issue: Further explore "evaluation findings" as a concept, and language that describes the challenges of making a "conformance claim" for large sites, dynamic sites, web apps
15:45:59 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-13 - Further explore "evaluation findings" as a concept, and language that describes the challenges of making a "conformance claim" for large sites, dynamic sites, web apps; please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/issues/13/edit>.
15:46:33 <ericvelleman> Thanks Peter
15:47:35 <Sarah_Swierenga> mike: conformance claims seems to be more objective than they actually are; however, for all practical purposes, even if the findings are all transparent, someone is going to compare them. they will try to create a score or metric to compare the two tools. so, if we don't establish the metric for conformance claim, someone else will.
15:48:11 <ericvelleman> q?
15:48:17 <MartijnHoutepen> q- mik
15:48:20 <korn> q+
15:49:20 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: we should also be aware of this this will be used. language is important and if we suggest that this is 'the number' or
15:49:57 <korn> q-
15:49:58 <shadi> q+
15:50:02 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: or 'yes, it passes' can be risky, since it usually isn't true
15:50:02 <shadi> ack me
15:50:14 <Detlev> q+
15:50:19 <korn> q+
15:50:44 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: i don't disagree with the discussion, but does this belong in wcag, or in this methodology? needs to be discussed in the wcat working group.
15:51:02 <Detlev> ack me
15:51:47 <shadi> q+
15:52:39 <Sarah_Swierenga> detlev: the methodology should draw a clear line between the 'check' and what it really does, which is show where the problems in the site are. more realistic and more usable.
15:53:04 <Detlev> Zakim, mute me
15:53:04 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
15:53:32 <Sarah_Swierenga> peter: we are all members of wcag or eval tf, so anything has to be approved by the wcag working group anyway
15:54:14 <shadi> ack me
15:54:17 <korn> q-
15:55:14 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:55:29 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: it is our responsibility to bring back findings to the working group. so far in our draft, we have that you do a 'conformance check with reasonable confidence.'
15:56:11 <Detlev> I have been going on about that repeatedly but it did not find consinsus of course
15:56:39 <shadi> sometimes consensus building takes its time, Detlev :)
15:56:48 <Detlev> sure :-)
15:57:36 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: watch for the revised diagram and get comments back to the group quickly
16:00:15 <Zakim> -Sarah
16:02:13 <Mike_Elledge> Thanks, all. Happy Valentine's Day!
16:02:24 <Detlev> bye
16:02:25 <MartijnHoutepen> bye
16:02:27 <Liz> Bye
16:02:28 <Zakim> -[Oracle]
16:02:30 <Zakim> -Mike
16:02:32 <Zakim> -MoeKraft
16:02:32 <Zakim> -Kathy
16:02:33 <Zakim> -ericvelleman
16:02:35 <Zakim> -MartijnHoutepen
16:02:35 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has left #eval
16:02:37 <MartijnHoutepen> MartijnHoutepen has left #eval
16:02:37 <Zakim> -Liz
16:02:38 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
16:02:38 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.313.322.aaaa, Vivienne, +1.301.975.aabb, Shadi, +31.30.239.aacc, MartijnHoutepen, +49.404.318.aadd, Detlev, Liz, +1.517.432.aaee,
16:02:38 <Zakim> ... +1.510.334.aaff, Mike, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +31.30.695.aagg, +1.978.443.aahh, Kathy, Sarah, ericvelleman, Peter, MoeKraft, Peter_Korn
16:02:43 <Zakim> -Detlev
16:02:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/14-eval-minutes.html trackbot
16:02:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:02:47 <RRSAgent> I see no action items