IRC log of eval on 2013-02-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
15:00:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/21-eval-irc
15:00:47 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eval
15:00:49 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
15:00:49 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start now
15:00:50 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
15:00:50 [trackbot]
Date: 21 February 2013
15:00:59 [shadi]
zakim, this is eval
15:00:59 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; that matches WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM
15:01:05 [Zakim]
+ +31.30.239.aaaa
15:01:13 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:01:13 [Zakim]
+MartijnHoutepen; got it
15:01:19 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, MartijnHoutepen
15:01:24 [Liz]
Liz has joined #eval
15:01:24 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #eval
15:01:31 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:01:33 [Zakim]
+Shadi
15:02:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.301.975.aabb
15:02:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.510.334.aacc
15:02:17 [agarrison]
agarrison has joined #eval
15:02:23 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is agarrison
15:02:23 [Zakim]
+agarrison; got it
15:02:38 [shadi]
zakim, aabb is Liz
15:02:38 [Zakim]
+Liz; got it
15:02:48 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:02:53 [shadi]
zakim, aacc is Peter
15:02:53 [Zakim]
+Peter; got it
15:03:13 [Zakim]
-[IPcaller]
15:05:02 [Zakim]
-Peter
15:05:39 [Zakim]
+Peter
15:05:46 [shadi]
regrets: Kathy, Sarah, Moe, Detlev
15:06:06 [Vivienne]
Vivienne has joined #eval
15:06:25 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, mute me
15:06:25 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:06:33 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130219
15:06:43 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:06:50 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20130208
15:07:12 [Vivienne]
Vivienne has joined #eval
15:07:29 [Vivienne]
zakim, IPcaller is me
15:07:29 [Zakim]
+Vivienne; got it
15:09:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
ok
15:09:37 [MoeKraft]
MoeKraft has joined #eval
15:09:46 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: Latest version online in which we processed the comments received from wcag wgf
15:10:42 [MartijnHoutepen]
saz: comment No1 added a review note on terminology
15:11:05 [MartijnHoutepen]
No2 Styling
15:11:15 [MartijnHoutepen]
3 is a grammar fix
15:11:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
4 added a review note on scoring
15:12:04 [MartijnHoutepen]
scribeNick: MartijnHoutepen
15:12:25 [Zakim]
+MoeKraft
15:12:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: Right now you score your score against the total SC
15:13:14 [Vivienne]
q+
15:13:20 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: suggestion to exclude non-applicable SCs in scoring
15:14:25 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: We'll get input from testdrive
15:15:49 [MartijnHoutepen]
VC: the way it was originally intended: not applicable is pass. We added 'not-applicable' and need to word this carefully
15:16:30 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: we discussed this on reporting, but not yet on scoring
15:16:31 [Zakim]
+[Oracle]
15:16:36 [Zakim]
-Peter
15:16:58 [korn]
korn has joined #eval
15:16:59 [agarrison]
q+
15:17:11 [korn]
Zakim, who is here?
15:17:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, MartijnHoutepen (muted), agarrison, Shadi, Liz, Vivienne, MoeKraft, [Oracle]
15:17:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see korn, MoeKraft, Vivienne, agarrison, Ryladog, Liz, Zakim, RRSAgent, MartijnHoutepen, shadi, trackbot
15:17:17 [korn]
Zakim, Oracle has Peter_Korn
15:17:18 [Zakim]
+Peter_Korn; got it
15:17:35 [korn]
q+
15:17:56 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130219#step5c
15:18:16 [shadi]
ack v
15:18:40 [korn]
+1!
15:18:40 [MartijnHoutepen]
AG: Why not look at failures instead of passes?
15:19:04 [Vivienne]
I also score via the failures
15:19:33 [korn]
If you have 36 A/AA criteria, and n failures, then your score is 36-n (per page, etc.)
15:21:55 [Vivienne]
q+
15:22:01 [agarrison]
q-
15:22:19 [shadi]
ack korn
15:22:26 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: do we need to adress this before publishing or put it in a review note
15:22:41 [Tim]
Tim has joined #eval
15:23:18 [MartijnHoutepen]
PK: publish now, but give alternative scoring methods we consider in review note
15:24:00 [MartijnHoutepen]
PK: proposal: score = 36 - (number of failures)
15:24:26 [shadi]
ack v
15:24:42 [shadi]
[[[Review Note: Feedback on this section is particularly welcome. For example, how do these scoring approaches work in practices? Are there other simple yet effective scoring approaches? Should the scoring be based on applicable Success Criteria only?]]
15:24:55 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: let's put this in a (new) review note
15:25:24 [korn]
Feedback on this section is particularly welcome. For example, how do these scoring approaches work in practice? An alternate scoring approach being considered is...
15:26:19 [agarrison]
q+
15:27:04 [shadi]
[[[Review Note: Feedback on this section is particularly welcome. For example, how do these scoring approaches work in practice? Are there other simple yet effective scoring approaches; Eval TF is considering using score based on failures rather than successes? Should the scoring be based on applicable Success Criteria only?]]
15:27:07 [shadi]
ack ag
15:27:44 [MartijnHoutepen]
AG: 4 failures out of 25 sc can be high or low , it depends how many sc are applicable
15:28:02 [korn]
Feedback on this section is particularly welcome.  Another approach being considered is to record success criteria failures.  A third is to also track those that are not applicable.  Are there other simple yet effective scoring approaches? Is there an approach preferred by the reviewer?  For example, how do these scoring approaches work in practices? Should the scoring be based on applicable Success Criteria only?]
15:29:28 [Vivienne]
I'm fine with it
15:29:34 [agarrison]
Fine
15:29:40 [MoeKraft]
+1
15:29:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1
15:29:43 [Ryladog]
Ryladog has joined #eval
15:29:48 [Ryladog]
+1
15:30:19 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: take up Peter's wording suggestion for the review note (with minor tweaks as necessary)
15:30:36 [korn]
FInal suggestion: [[[Feedback on this section is particularly welcome.  Another scoring approach being considered is to instead record failures of success criteria.  Also being considered is tracking those that are not applicable.  Are there other simple yet effective scoring approaches? Is there an approach preferred by the reviewer?  For example, how do these scoring approaches work in practices? Should the scoring be based on applicable Succe[CUT]
15:30:43 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20130208.html
15:30:55 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: this will be updated before publishing
15:31:27 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: Comment no5 not applicable
15:32:08 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: No6 wording change
15:32:10 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
15:32:39 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130208#rerun
15:33:11 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: 7 rewrite of section re-runnig evaluation, include old and new pages
15:34:07 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: 8,9,rewording of adjectives
15:34:52 [Vivienne]
q+
15:35:25 [korn]
q+
15:35:42 [shadi]
ack viv
15:35:43 [Ryladog]
q+
15:35:59 [MartijnHoutepen]
VC: can we add smt like: while it is only one of the approaches, this is the only one developed by W3c
15:36:56 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: Not necessary, has a high standing on its own
15:36:57 [korn]
q-
15:38:19 [shadi]
q- ry
15:40:04 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: comment 10: earlier comment 25 on separable area's not adressed, we added a review note
15:40:49 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: comment 11, see comments 8 and 9
15:41:04 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: comment 12 see 11
15:41:20 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: comment 13 see 11 and 12
15:41:57 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130208#applicability
15:42:01 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: comment 13: the note is rewritten
15:42:18 [shadi]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20130221eval/results
15:43:41 [shadi]
[[Note: WCAG 2.0 defines "Statement of Partial Conformance" for individual web pages that are known not to conform with WCAG 2.0 due to third-party content and/or languages lacking accessibility support. Such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation according to this methodology. In some cases this means that the website as a whole does not conform with WCAG 2.0 due to partially conforming web pages. Section Step 5: Report the Evaluation Findings
15:43:41 [shadi]
provides more guidance on reporting evaluation results and making accessibility statements for entire websites.]]
15:44:06 [shadi]
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130208&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130219
15:44:44 [shadi]
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130208&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130219#applicability
15:45:58 [shadi]
[[CHANGE
15:45:58 [shadi]
Such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation according to this methodology.
15:45:58 [shadi]
TO
15:45:58 [shadi]
Such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation if this methodology is used. (or- ....if using this methodology)]]
15:47:11 [agarrison]
q+
15:47:35 [MartijnHoutepen]
Comment 14: on techniques from the wcag wg to techniques in general, removed some references to wcag
15:48:16 [MartijnHoutepen]
AG: less clear now
15:48:57 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: ongoing discussion on techniques and the misunderstanding of the role of techniques
15:49:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: wcag wg will adress this in the future
15:50:13 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: for now they ask us to not further the misunderstanding
15:53:15 [MartijnHoutepen]
AG: take out the links to techniques
15:54:03 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: we will discuss this further, maybe add in brackets to not limit ourselves to wcag techs
15:55:45 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: i will report back on comment 14 and 16
15:58:32 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: comment 15 needs more thourough revision, we will have real world testing after publication
15:59:49 [MartijnHoutepen]
PK: add a review note on appendix C
16:00:33 [korn]
We would appreciate feedback on the report items. Should any more be added, or any removed or changed?
16:00:44 [MartijnHoutepen]
+1
16:00:59 [Vivienne]
+1
16:01:10 [Ryladog]
+1
16:01:10 [Tim]
+1
16:01:30 [korn]
Note: WCAG has not yet defined what conformance means for an entire website, just for individual web pages....
16:01:42 [Zakim]
-MoeKraft
16:01:45 [korn]
...Is the language here confusing on that point?
16:02:35 [shadi]
RESOLUTION: add review note to Appendix C as proposed by Peter
16:02:44 [korn]
My final comment in this section was: [[[Also further down in the same bulleted list is the item "Reason for not conforming to WCAG 2.0: "third-party content" or "lack of accessibility support". This text should be a conditional, e.g. "If present, and if known, the reason for not conforming...."]]]
16:02:55 [korn]
Any reason we can't just make that editorial change here? That should be a simple one...
16:05:38 [shadi]
[[Conformance is defined only for Web pages. However, a conformance claim may be made to cover one page, a series of pages, or multiple related Web pages.]]
16:08:21 [Tim]
I think WCAG talks about conformance for multiple pages as part of a process
16:09:36 [MartijnHoutepen]
PK: comment 17 change "Reason for not conforming to WCAG 2.0: "third-party content" or "lack of accessibility support". to "If present, and if known, the reason for
16:10:46 [MartijnHoutepen]
SAZ: we will discuss appendix C before a later version
16:11:21 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, unmute me
16:11:21 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should no longer be muted
16:11:57 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
16:12:14 [Liz]
bye
16:12:15 [MartijnHoutepen]
NO meeting next week
16:12:21 [Vivienne]
ok good night all
16:12:50 [Zakim]
-Liz
16:12:52 [Zakim]
-agarrison
16:13:01 [Zakim]
-MartijnHoutepen
16:13:03 [Zakim]
-Vivienne
16:13:04 [Zakim]
-Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:13:11 [Zakim]
-[Oracle]
16:13:14 [Zakim]
-Shadi
16:13:16 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
16:13:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were Katie_Haritos-Shea, +31.30.239.aaaa, MartijnHoutepen, Shadi, +1.301.975.aabb, +1.510.334.aacc, agarrison, Liz, Peter, Vivienne, MoeKraft, Peter_Korn, Tim_Boland
16:13:17 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
16:13:17 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:13:17 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:13:25 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:13:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/21-eval-minutes.html trackbot
16:13:26 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:13:26 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items