14:59:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:59:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/12-eval-irc
14:59:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eval
14:59:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3825
14:59:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:46 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:59:46 <trackbot> Date: 12 December 2013
14:59:59 <shadi> zakim, this is eval
14:59:59 <Zakim> ok, shadi; that matches WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM
15:00:08 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see Kathy_Wahlbin
15:00:17 <agarrison> agarrison has joined #eval
15:00:51 <Zakim> +EricVelleman
15:01:21 <Zakim> +Shadi
15:01:32 <agarrison> I'll join telecon in a couple of minutes
15:02:02 <Zakim> +Detlev
15:02:04 <Zakim> +MartijnHoutepen
15:02:09 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #eval
15:02:55 <Zakim> +MoeKraft
15:03:12 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
15:03:36 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129
15:03:50 <Zakim> +Sarah_Swierenga
15:04:27 <MartijnHoutepen> who is scribing?
15:04:38 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:41 <richard> richard has joined #eval
15:04:46 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
15:04:52 <Detlev> scribe?
15:05:03 <shadi> zakim, ipcaller is Richard
15:05:03 <Zakim> +Richard; got it
15:05:18 <agarrison> zakim, ipcaller is Alistair
15:05:18 <Zakim> sorry, agarrison, I do not recognize a party named 'ipcaller'
15:05:23 <Zakim> +Mike_Elledge
15:05:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:05:30 <Detlev> fine
15:05:53 <MartijnHoutepen> zakim, mute me
15:05:53 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:06:03 <Detlev> scribe: Detlev
15:06:33 <agarrison> zakim, ipcaller is Alistair
15:06:33 <Zakim> +Alistair; got it
15:08:43 <Detlev> Shadi: Many comments, mote to come. Most disputed perhaps scoring, Use of review teams.
15:09:53 <Kathy> q+
15:09:59 <Detlev> Shadi: There was a call to review reference to review teams - suggestion to respond by chsanging language from "highly recommended' to 'beneficial'
15:10:14 <ericvelleman> q?
15:10:20 <Kathy> ack me
15:11:12 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment10
15:11:17 <Detlev> Kathy: Need not be highly recommended but still usefull, even by not so experienced evaluators - remains a good recommendation.
15:12:01 <richard> Remove +1
15:12:08 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1
15:12:13 <MoeKraft> +1
15:12:15 <ericvelleman> +1
15:12:21 <Detlev> Shadi: Any objections to changing from highly recommended change to something else?
15:12:23 <MartijnHoutepen> +1
15:12:24 <Detlev> no
15:12:41 <Detlev> Shadi: resolution to change language, but section stays in
15:13:03 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment11
15:13:23 <Detlev> Shadi: Comment No. 11 (Michael Cooper) concerning the removal of a section
15:14:05 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment18
15:14:50 <Detlev> Shadi: Comment 18 )Gregg)  :Concern about the use of the term "core functionality"
15:15:45 <richard> q+
15:16:08 <Detlev> Shadi: Suggestion Gregg: better use DEPENDEND COMPONENTS
15:16:50 <Detlev> Richard: The thing is about function, not component, functionality should stay  - could ber either core or common
15:17:34 <Detlev> Shadi asks people to look at comment 18 closely to solve this issue
15:17:58 <Detlev> Eric: This started with primatry functionality
15:18:11 <Liz> Liz has joined #eval
15:18:27 <Detlev> Detlev Dependent components is not easy to grasp
15:18:43 <Detlev> Eric: can't we keep 'core functionality'?
15:18:58 <Detlev> Shadi: lets wait for responses first, then decide
15:19:05 <Zakim> +Liz
15:19:22 <Detlev> Shadi: explains difference between core and dependent..
15:19:27 <ericvelleman> q?
15:19:36 <Detlev> q+
15:19:46 <Kathy> q+
15:19:46 <MartijnHoutepen> q- richard
15:20:11 <Liz> Liz has joined #eval
15:21:23 <MartijnHoutepen> DF: i believe GVs concern is about opening the floodgates to subjective interpretations of core
15:22:34 <Kathy> ack me
15:22:38 <Tim> Tim has joined #eval
15:22:39 <MartijnHoutepen> DF: afraid of using complicated terms
15:23:02 <Detlev> Detlev explains what Gregg arguments against core functionality were
15:24:15 <Detlev> Kathy: Agrees that core functionality may not be ideal, bu tthe main thing is to link to a terms definition "core functionality' (or whatwever other term)
15:26:04 <Detlev> Shadi: Agreement that core functionality may be subject to misunderstanding  we could truy dependend components
15:26:04 <Detlev> q+
15:28:12 <MartijnHoutepen> DF: trying to find an example of another term suggested bij GV; I think it was 'essential'. 'Dependent component' seems too complicated
15:28:40 <shadi> [[From Gregg's comment: I would advise talking about "High Frequency pages" -- and "Pages needed to complete processes".]]
15:28:45 <agarrison> q+
15:29:00 <shadi> q- det
15:29:36 <Detlev> Detlev core is perhaps too narrow, better term needed
15:30:03 <Detlev> Alistair: does not like dependent components, makes no sense
15:30:32 <Detlev> Shadi: Resolution: We accept Greggs critique but think his suggestino is not ideal
15:30:38 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment37
15:31:54 <Detlev> Shadi Comment 37: involving people with disabilities - one comment asking that non-optonal, the othe rtoo remove that sugestino because it adds not so much to checking, mire to usability
15:32:22 <shadi> q- ag
15:32:46 <agarrison> q+
15:33:18 <shadi> q- ag
15:33:22 <Detlev> Shadi: Proposed resolution: Change to "Involving people with disabilities and people with aging-related impairments helps identify additional accessibility barriers that are not easily discovered by expert evaluation alone".
15:33:46 <Detlev> Alistair: happy with current text
15:33:53 <Kathy> q+
15:34:05 <Detlev> Eric: also happy with Proposed resolution, AListair?
15:34:33 <Kathy> q-
15:35:05 <Zakim> +Tim_Boland
15:35:51 <Detlev> Alistair: Agrees with second comment that says for purposes of evaluation here, it doesn't add much to involve users
15:36:45 <Detlev> Shadi: Still true (ans should be stated) that it is still beneficial to involve users
15:37:41 <Detlev> Kathy: In user testing you always cstch issues that you wouldn't have caught otherwise, much if it not strictly a11y-related (also to AT, UA, usability etc)
15:38:15 <Detlev> Kathy: we should not open this too much so we do niot confuse users
15:38:59 <ericvelleman> change from 'discovered by the evaluators alone' to 'discovered by expert evaluation alone'?
15:39:17 <Detlev> Alistair: thinks change weakens the text - do we have to make the change?
15:39:54 <Liz> no change
15:39:57 <Detlev> Detlev: Can't think aout that so wquickly...
15:40:56 <Detlev> Kathy; Expert evaluation alone will not catch all issues
15:41:52 <Detlev> Shadi: Explains rationale of proposed change to address concern
15:42:06 <Detlev> 1+
15:42:43 <Detlev> Alistair: not happy with change but go ahead
15:43:52 <Detlev> Eric: We need to keep the doc in line with general WAI guidance
15:44:14 <Detlev> Eric: we say it's optional anyway
15:45:12 <Detlev> Shadi: WCAG docs (Intro, Understanding..., mentions the importance of involving users also
15:45:28 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment28
15:46:05 <Detlev> Shadi: Comment 28 - Sample size suggestion by David (Candadian Gov)
15:46:22 <richard> q+
15:46:42 <Detlev> Shadi: Difficulty starts with determining the size (including DOM states)
15:47:04 <ericvelleman> q?
15:47:41 <Detlev> Shadi: Proposed Resolution: Add editor note and ask for more input on this issue, also ask David for details on source
15:48:06 <shadi> q- richard
15:48:22 <Detlev> Richard: Our job is to evaluate, not to establish statistically correct sample
15:48:34 <Detlev> Richard: If possible, do the whole thing
15:49:11 <Detlev> Richard: else, follow the steps (common pages, add random sample)
15:49:22 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment31
15:49:56 <Detlev> Shadi: Comment by Richard that we cannot prescribe random sampling
15:50:33 <Detlev> Richard: It is up to the evaluator to specify the random sample size because the need for that will be specific to the web site under review
15:50:52 <Detlev> paste?
15:50:53 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment30
15:51:49 <Detlev> Shadi: There is no implication to sample.
15:52:20 <Detlev> Richard :Weoften do the whole site - should be visible as option
15:52:21 <Zakim> -Mike_Elledge
15:52:46 <Detlev> Shadi: If all has been tested, you can make a conformance claim
15:53:27 <Detlev> Shadi: back to sample size, reiterates proposed resolution
15:53:35 <Detlev> Shadi: Objections?
15:53:37 <Detlev> no
15:53:41 <Liz> no
15:53:41 <ericvelleman> Agree
15:55:09 <Detlev> Shadi: Sample size is adaptive and site size specific - What is the objection of suggwesting 10% as random-sampled, Richard?
15:55:56 <Detlev> Richard: Seems it is too detailed, to resterictive
15:56:54 <Detlev> Richard: Would be enough to say use Random sample, let evaluator decide how to do it but record what he/she has done
15:57:28 <Detlev> Shadi: Aim was to introduce a minimunm and a threshold so it would scale
15:57:39 <MoeKraft> Have to drop early. Have a good weekend all!
15:57:44 <Zakim> -MoeKraft
15:58:42 <Detlev> Eric: OLd versions were very briedf and were beefed up for tthis version - we need to test the methodology so we will find out if it works, that will generate relevant feedback
15:58:54 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment36
15:59:31 <Detlev> Shadi: about N.A. Gregg suggesting use of "not present" instead of N.A.
15:59:52 <Detlev> Shadi: has been discuss a lot in the WG
16:00:07 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment38
16:00:44 <Detlev> Shadi: about the term correlation
16:01:11 <Detlev> Shadi: Please look at the disposition of comments and use the mailing list or survey for feedback
16:01:12 <Zakim> -Kathy_Wahlbin
16:01:22 <Detlev> I have to leave
16:01:41 <Zakim> -Detlev
16:01:49 <Kathy> sorry I had to leave
16:01:50 <MartijnHoutepen> ill take over
16:02:01 <MartijnHoutepen> scribe: MartijnHoutepen
16:02:31 <MartijnHoutepen> SAZ: we'll discuss results with WCAG wg and ERT wg,  sadly no publication this year
16:03:20 <Liz> bye
16:03:25 <Zakim> -Liz
16:03:34 <Zakim> -Tim_Boland
16:03:34 <Zakim> -Alistair
16:03:36 <Zakim> -Richard
16:03:37 <MartijnHoutepen> EV: thanks Shadi for overview, clustering of comment. Let's start discussions on the list
16:03:37 <Zakim> -Sarah_Swierenga
16:03:39 <Zakim> -Shadi
16:03:40 <Zakim> -EricVelleman
16:03:42 <ericvelleman> ericvelleman has left #eval
16:04:19 <MartijnHoutepen> Shadi, will you finish the scribing ?
16:04:31 <Zakim> -MartijnHoutepen
16:04:32 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
16:04:32 <Zakim> Attendees were Kathy_Wahlbin, EricVelleman, Shadi, Detlev, MartijnHoutepen, MoeKraft, Sarah_Swierenga, Richard, Mike_Elledge, Alistair, Liz, Tim_Boland
16:38:08 <Kathy> Kathy has left #eval
17:00:23 <Bim> Bim has joined #eval
17:10:31 <shadi> shadi has joined #eval
17:10:54 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
17:10:54 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:10:54 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:11:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:11:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/12/12-eval-minutes.html trackbot
17:11:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:11:03 <RRSAgent> I see no action items