Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-AERT

SAZ: document maturing
... the framework seems stable
... should start thinking about a public WD to get more feedback
... but lots of scrubbing and editing needed

SM: also agree that it is looking much more mature
... congratulate Carlos on these improvements
... have several minor comments
... but otherwise good to get broader feedback

SAZ: yes, now is the time to start nit-picking
... and improve these aspects

SM: HTTP headers, for example for language versions of the pages
... but also other types of content negotiation

<samuelm> E-Tag

SM: also need to consider these to report the context of evaluation

CV: like the idea of content negotiation

<samuelm> SM: WG created HTTP in RDF because of that

<samuelm> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13.3972&rep=rep1&type=pdf

SM: text for localization should better address the aspects of internationalization

CV: agree, good input

SAZ: me too

SM: we don't talk about customizing the view on the results
... as opposed to filtering or sorting the results

SAZ: think one of the issues is that the features are sometimes not very clear
... need to have clear "checks" to tell if a tool has a feature or not

SM: to me some sorts of customization are not filtering
... for example functions that aid navigation and manipulation

SAZ: agree that we are talking about two types of customization
... one retrieves the data and the other works with that data

CV: agree, will try to make clearer

[[agreement that section 2.3.2 should include description for both types of customizations discussed above]]

CV: one sentence "check" will repeat the title
... don't like it a lot
... maybe better to improve the section text instead

SM: adding a one-sentence "check" could be dangerous
... will be a tough task
... maybe better to try to improve the text