See also: IRC log
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-requirements
SAZ: looks ok, good to have the additional info
as appendecies
... may not be able to get to them
CV: no width restriction in TR format is an
issue
... can this be changed?
SAZ: not sure, need to double-check
CV: ok, will leave for now
SAZ: item #4 should be #3?
Support developers of accessibility evaluation tools to understand the different types of techniques in WCAG 2.0 and types of web accessibility tests: automatic, semiautomatic and manual -> Support developers of accessibility evaluation tools to understand how to use failures and techniques in WCAG 2.0 to address the different types of web accessibility tests: automatic, semiautomatic and manual
EGyR: the first one is more clear
CV: mixing up the concepts - who does the tests etc
EGyR: first wording has two parts
... second is one thing that depends on the other
Support developers of accessibility evaluation tools to understand the different types of techniques in WCAG 2.0 and types of web accessibility tests: automatic, semiautomatic and manual -> Support developers of accessibility evaluation tools to understand the different types of web accessibility tests: automatic, semiautomatic and manual
(and how these relate to WCAG 2.0 success criteria, techniques, and failures)
(and how these relate to WCAG 2.0 success criteria, sufficient techniques, advisory techniques, and common failures)
(and to use WCAG 2.0 success criteria, sufficient techniques, advisory techniques, and common failures for web accessibility testing)
#3 Support developers of accessibility evaluation tools to understand the different types of web accessibility tests: automatic, semiautomatic and manual
#4 Support developers of accessibility evaluation tools to understand how to use WCAG 2.0 success criteria, sufficient techniques, advisory techniques, and common failures for web accessibility testing)
In addition, the document may provide additional information on ...
SAZ: put list under "Typical features of an evaluation tool" as a sub-list to objective #1
#1 Describe to web developers typical features of web accessibility evaluation tools. Examples of such features include:
CV: too much information
SAZ: make "typical features" a link?
#1 Describe to web developers typical features of web accessibility evaluation tools. Examples of such features are listed in [section ...].
EGyR: agree
"and briefly describe possible implementation issues of these features. These issues may include additional information like licensing schemes, etc."?
SAZ: concerns about expectations
CV: will try to tone down "implementation"
SAZ: also concerned about "licensening discussion"
CV: can remove it from here
EgyR: licensing can be relevant to implementation but not sure the document can address all the different complex situations that can exist
#1. inform the WAI Coordination Group (CG)
#2. ask for EOWG feedback on requirements document
#3. start working on main document
#4. identify a good title for the document
#5. announce the work and recruit new participants
SAZ: no meeting next week
... meet again in 2 weeks