13:52:51 RRSAgent has joined #eval 13:52:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/07/18-eval-irc 13:52:53 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:52:53 Zakim has joined #eval 13:52:55 Zakim, this will be 3825 13:52:55 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 13:52:56 Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference 13:52:56 Date: 18 July 2013 13:57:55 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started 13:58:02 +Shadi 13:58:38 ericvelleman has joined #eval 13:59:09 agenda+ New Editor Draft, DoC and survey 13:59:27 agenda+ Rewrite of section 1.b 13:59:28 agenda+ Parameters of the sample size 13:59:39 agenda+ Planning of next meetings 13:59:46 chair: Eric 13:59:47 +??P8 14:00:04 Regrets: Detlev, Kathy, Tim 14:00:08 Zakim, ??P8 is me 14:00:08 +MartijnHoutepen; got it 14:00:40 Liz has joined #eval 14:00:55 + +31.30.239.aaaa 14:01:06 zakim, aaaa is me 14:01:06 +ericvelleman; got it 14:01:12 + +1.301.975.aabb 14:01:37 zakim, aabb is Liz 14:01:37 +Liz; got it 14:02:12 Vivienne has joined #eval 14:03:10 korn has joined #eval 14:03:20 + +1.517.432.aacc 14:03:21 +[IPcaller] 14:03:26 Zakim, IPcaller is me 14:03:26 +Vivienne; got it 14:03:47 scribe: shadi 14:03:58 Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval 14:04:08 zakim, please mute me 14:04:08 MartijnHoutepen should now be muted 14:04:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Jul/0037.html 14:04:41 Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq10/ 14:04:41 Editor Draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/ 14:04:41 DoC: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20130226 14:05:02 + +1.703.861.aadd 14:05:27 EV: circulated documents, including new Editor Draft and survey 14:05:36 zakim, aacc is Sarah_Swierenga 14:05:36 +Sarah_Swierenga; got it 14:05:43 zakim, aadd is korn 14:05:43 +korn; got it 14:05:51 Ryladog has joined #eval 14:06:09 ...comments addressed in batches 14:06:09 +Peter_Korn 14:06:30 ...please complete survey by next Tuesday 14:06:32 Zakim, aadd is NOT korn... 14:06:32 I don't understand 'aadd is NOT korn', korn 14:06:45 zakim, korn is Ryladog 14:06:45 +Ryladog; got it 14:06:53 zakim, where is 703? 14:06:53 North American dialing code 1.703 is Virginia 14:06:56 MoeKraft has joined #eval 14:07:13 +MoeKraft 14:07:42 q? 14:07:47 ...still have a number of large issues that need further discussion 14:08:08 I haven't had time to look at the edited draft or other documents yet 14:08:23 Sorry, I haven't either.... too many fires for me, too. 14:08:39 I'll set the time aside and make sure that I do it 14:10:13 i'll give it a try for next Tuesday, too 14:11:31 EV: survey links to the corresponding sections in the Editor Draft 14:11:56 zakim, take up next 14:11:56 agendum 1. "New Editor Draft, DoC and survey" taken up [from shadi] 14:12:07 zakim, close agendum 1 14:12:07 agendum 1, New Editor Draft, DoC and survey, closed 14:12:08 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:12:08 2. Rewrite of section 1.b [from shadi] 14:12:09 zakim, take up next 14:12:10 agendum 2. "Rewrite of section 1.b" taken up [from shadi] 14:12:30 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130712#step1b 14:12:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Jul/0035.html 14:14:07 EV: tried to explain in the email 14:14:27 ...propose to change the title of the section 14:14:32 ...the goal of the evaluation is set by the document 14:14:46 q? 14:14:52 ...not really the goal being determined here 14:15:04 PK: maybe "purpose" or "focus" instead? 14:15:32 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130712#audience 14:15:34 ...assumption is that there are multiple usecases 14:15:47 ...don't want to discourage use in other settings 14:16:03 ...for example product team during development 14:16:07 q+ 14:16:27 ...to say the only goal is full conformance evaluation would be a mistakre 14:19:40 SAZ: think the document describes a process for conformance evaluation 14:20:05 ...like the terms "purpose" or "focus" 14:20:34 q+ 14:20:40 PK: seems we are not sufficiently expressing the dichtomy between absolute conformance 14:20:49 ...and levels of conformance or performance 14:21:27 EV: have purposes already listed in the introduction section 14:21:57 ...would be nice to get to a minimum requirement that is flexible 14:22:06 q? 14:22:12 ack me 14:23:52 ack me 14:24:12 SAZ: agree on dichotomy issue, but this is separate 14:24:35 ...discussion not tying back into this section 14:24:45 MH: agree with Shadi 14:24:53 ...not best title for this section 14:25:19 zakim, mute me 14:25:19 MartijnHoutepen should now be muted 14:25:27 ...purpose and goal should be in abstract or introduction 14:25:32 PK: not commenting on title per se 14:25:46 q+ 14:25:55 EV: agree, risk of what is sometimes understood by "conformance" 14:26:27 PK: maybe section explaining what we mean by "conformance" 14:26:28 ...as the extent to which, or something like that 14:26:32 +1 14:26:32 +1 14:26:35 q+ 14:26:44 ack viv 14:26:47 +1 14:26:56 VC: like the way Peter put this 14:27:27 ...asked often by clients if they conform and what they need to fix it 14:27:27 "Representative Conformance"? 14:27:52 ...then need to explain that we only evaluate a sample 14:28:11 I agree with Peter and Vivienne on making sure we clearly define 'conformance' - 'representative conformance' would be a term, but maybe appropriate for our document/approach 14:28:27 ...different people have different understanding of what conformance is 14:28:32 q? 14:28:52 ...several other terms that also need explanation 14:29:27 ...to avoid legal issues 14:29:34 ...we put disclaimer on our evaluations 14:29:40 q? 14:29:41 ...to explain this 14:29:59 q+ to say that this reminds me of home purchase pre-inspections (e.g. for termites). 14:31:27 SAZ: agree with Peter's suggestion 14:31:35 ...believe we even have the wording in the document 14:31:50 ...but just not pulled out and clearly highlighted 14:32:11 +1 to the new section. 14:32:31 +1 from me too 14:32:31 +1 14:32:48 +1 to add a new section on conformance. 14:32:52 q+ 14:32:58 q- 14:33:10 EV: strong support, will add to document 14:33:27 ...but different from our initial discussion 14:33:55 PK: on Step 1.b, agree that title does not match the text 14:34:04 ...text is about report results 14:34:13 ...all about how much detail you want 14:34:27 ...think need to be synched 14:35:03 So instead of branching out the current section 1.b. we narrow it down to scoping additional wishes by evaluation commissioners that would normally not fall within the minimum requirements for WCAG-EM. This will make the methodology more flexible. 14:35:10 EV: thinking of it as "extra things that a commissioner asks for beyond the minimum of what you would do to evaluate the website" 14:35:17 q+ 14:35:23 q- 14:35:29 ack viv 14:37:04 EV: think goal is to do a conformance evaluation 14:37:30 ...this document shold define the minimum requirements to do so 14:37:55 ...evaluation commissioner may want more information than that minimum 14:38:27 ...these additions need to be in the scope at first 14:38:28 q+ 14:38:41 ack me 14:39:27 MH: maybe add this information in the "definition of scope" section? 14:39:28 q+ 14:39:53 q+ 14:39:59 ...could work with the basic report 14:40:11 ...and extended based on the request 14:40:15 zakim, mute me 14:40:15 MartijnHoutepen should now be muted 14:40:27 ack me 14:42:50 SAZ: think relates to the depth rather than the breadth 14:43:11 ...it is about detail rather than area scope 14:43:34 PK: think may need a new 1.x section 14:43:46 ...one that describes scope and detail 14:44:01 ...and one about goal 14:44:02 q+ 14:44:05 q- k 14:45:06 q+ 14:45:30 ack me 14:45:32 q+ 14:45:48 q- k 14:45:56 SAZ: how does this impact the remaining steps as opposed to the detail? 14:46:27 PK: in a regression test, I will look at previous sample and add new pages 14:46:40 ...that purpose impacts the sampling technique 14:47:05 ...for development evaluation, I will prioritize areas of development 14:47:13 ...so it influences the scope 14:49:27 SAZ: think have something on "re-testing" in sampling 14:49:57 ...wonder if current "Baic Report", "Detailed Report", and "In-Depth Analysis" works? 14:50:27 PK: "Basic Report" to me is what I can give to a senior executive 14:50:38 ..."Detailed" contains more about the issues 14:51:27 ...and "In-Depth" is very useful for website owners and developers who are new to accessibility 14:51:51 q- 14:52:02 ...depends on if you are looking for consultancy on "what is wrong", or on "what is wrong and how to fix it" 14:52:06 ack viv 14:52:35 VC: think need separate sections for goal and reporting 14:52:48 ...also have other extras that we sometimes offer 14:53:06 ...for example testing with users if the client wants 14:53:35 ...don't offer three levels of reporting but mostly do "In-Depth" 14:53:43 ...that is the service we offer 14:54:02 ...but like the suggestion of "additions requested by the commissioner" 14:55:03 q? 14:55:07 I think we need to remember the difference between the purpose of the document and the purpose of the evaluation 14:56:49 SAZ: hearing agreement that title and text are a mismatch 14:57:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Jul/0028.html 14:57:24 ...also that "level of detail" seems to be one axis 14:57:35 ...then also "additional services" like testing with users or providing repair suggestions 14:57:47 zakim, take up next 14:57:47 agendum 3. "Parameters of the sample size" taken up [from shadi] 14:57:59 Eric - I would add to the parameter list any additional requests from the eval commissioner 14:58:26 EV: looking for parameters that influence the sample size 14:58:32 ...please send feedback on this 14:59:32 zakim, take up next 14:59:32 agendum 4. "Planning of next meetings" taken up [from shadi] 14:59:42 EV: holiday season 15:00:11 ...intending to meet next two weeks 15:00:27 -Peter_Korn 15:00:31 korn has left #eval 15:00:38 [25.7 and 1.8] 15:00:39 bye 15:00:41 ack me 15:00:43 bye 15:00:44 ...then two weeks break 15:00:45 I will be presenting at HCII next week and then will be on vacation the following week. Good luck in the next couple of meetings! 15:00:46 bye 15:00:46 -MartijnHoutepen 15:00:48 -Ryladog 15:00:49 -Liz 15:00:50 -MoeKraft 15:00:51 -Vivienne 15:00:56 [8.8 and 15.8] 15:01:00 -Sarah_Swierenga 15:01:01 ericvelleman has left #eval 15:01:02 -ericvelleman 15:01:07 trackbot, end meeting 15:01:07 Zakim, list attendees 15:01:07 As of this point the attendees have been Shadi, MartijnHoutepen, +31.30.239.aaaa, ericvelleman, +1.301.975.aabb, Liz, +1.517.432.aacc, Vivienne, +1.703.861.aadd, Sarah_Swierenga, 15:01:10 ... Peter_Korn, Ryladog, MoeKraft 15:01:14 -Shadi 15:01:15 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:01:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/07/18-eval-minutes.html trackbot 15:01:15 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended 15:01:15 Attendees were Shadi, MartijnHoutepen, +31.30.239.aaaa, ericvelleman, +1.301.975.aabb, Liz, +1.517.432.aacc, Vivienne, +1.703.861.aadd, Sarah_Swierenga, Peter_Korn, Ryladog, 15:01:15 ... MoeKraft 15:01:16 RRSAgent, bye 15:01:16 I see no action items