14:58:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:58:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/19-eval-irc
14:58:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:58:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eval
14:58:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3825
14:58:40 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:41 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:58:41 <trackbot> Date: 19 December 2013
14:58:44 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
14:58:51 <Zakim> +Liz
15:00:03 <Zakim> +EricVelleman
15:00:05 <Zakim> +Kathy_Wahlbin
15:00:49 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
15:01:30 <Zakim> +Sarah_Swierenga
15:04:22 <shadi> dialing...
15:05:31 <Zakim> +Shadi
15:06:43 <ericvelleman> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129>
15:07:46 <MartijnHoutepen> MartijnHoutepen has joined #eval
15:07:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> Scribe: Sarah Swierenga
15:08:03 <shadi> scribe: Sarah_Swierenga
15:08:24 <Zakim> +MartijnHoutepen
15:08:46 <MartijnHoutepen> Zakim, please mute me
15:08:46 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:09:11 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#36
15:10:14 <Kathy> q+
15:10:33 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: better term than non applicable
15:11:42 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: maybe just put 'met' if N/A, and then put in comments why it isn't applicable
15:12:05 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: that's WCAG preference, too
15:13:11 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: concerned that if we don't have a good term for N/A, them people will use N/A
15:13:59 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: concerned about when the page changes, the reader may not realize that it passed before because it wasn't there
15:14:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: comments could say there was no matching content, no video, etc.
15:15:14 <MartijnHoutepen> q+
15:15:21 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: not present as an acceptable term?
15:15:30 <shadi> ack kath
15:15:56 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: met/pass, and then use the comment area to describe why?
15:16:10 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: this would affect the pass/fail numbers
15:16:50 <Sarah_Swierenga> q+
15:17:42 <shadi> q+
15:17:45 <MartijnHoutepen> ack me
15:17:51 <Sarah_Swierenga> sarah: if many items have no content, we could end up with very skewed pass/fail results
15:18:06 <shadi> ack mart
15:18:30 <Sarah_Swierenga> martijn: we need a 'not applicable' option
15:19:05 <Sarah_Swierenga> martijn: correction, agrees with Kathy
15:19:09 <shadi> ack sarah
15:19:38 <Kathy> q+
15:19:55 <MartijnHoutepen> zakim, mute me
15:19:56 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:20:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: WCAG has concerns with N/A, since all criteria are all applicable
15:21:29 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: option 1, not promoting a N/A-type option - only use pass/fail
15:22:19 <Sarah_Swierenga> Shadi: option 2, find another term for N/A to indicate 'not present' - content not available on the website
15:22:35 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: will 'not present' be misused?
15:22:37 <shadi> ack me
15:23:28 <Kathy> ack me
15:24:50 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: the argument has been to have something else becasue we don't want to skew results, but she doesn't want people to judge the level of the accessibility based just on that number. Some criteria are more important, it's about the severity. She wants people to get away from this type of thinking
15:25:22 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: need to get into the remarks, explanations, etc. when reviewing the results of an evaluation.
15:25:49 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: likes noting in the remarks that it wasn't present
15:26:27 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: these options should be sent to the mailing list
15:27:00 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: just as Kathy says, people can misue 'pass/fail' or pass/fail/not present
15:28:14 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: we can discuss pros/cons on the list
15:28:28 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: step 5 comments
15:29:23 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: not all of the comments on Step 5 aren't in the document yet, e.g., kathy's comments
15:29:42 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#39
15:30:31 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#40
15:30:54 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: minor changes proposed
15:31:09 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#41
15:31:38 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: comment 41, fairly simple, so idea is to add specific credentials
15:32:17 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#42
15:33:08 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#43
15:33:18 <Sarah_Swierenga> Shadi: Gregg recommends dropping the scroing altogether
15:33:27 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: mixed responses
15:34:07 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: we are dropping the 'per instance' scoring, and allowing other scoring strategies. Recommends seeing how the public reacts to the updated version.
15:35:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: There were additional comments from the survey, but they aren't in the disposition of comments.
15:35:53 <ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/results
15:36:02 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/results
15:37:09 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#step1c
15:38:03 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#step4a
15:38:12 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: we asked people what AT will be used, but we don't have anything that talks again it later in the draft.
15:38:12 <shadi> [[Check that all features are supported by the baseline defined in Step 1.c: Define an Accessibility Support Baseline]]
15:38:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: does this need to be more clear?
15:39:34 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: meeting the success criteria, but doesn't mean that AT will work properly on the site
15:39:59 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: first check the criteria, then the AT supports features
15:40:10 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: we just need clarification on this topic
15:40:56 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: this question is asked quite a bit by clients, evaluators. Addressing this here in a short non-mandatory, would be very helpful
15:41:40 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: agrees with Shadi that this type of paragraph could go in Step 4a
15:42:05 <Sarah_Swierenga> Kathy: agrees to take an action to write this short paragraph on AT support
15:44:09 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: plan to present a new version in the new year. Next meeting will be January 9, 2014.
15:46:01 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: recommends sending out a survey about an in-person meeting at CSUN,
15:46:18 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: can we coordinate with other WCAG meetings?
15:47:37 <Sarah_Swierenga> shadi: if we do meet at CSUN, when should the meeting take place?
15:48:31 <Liz> Happy Holidays
15:48:46 <Sarah_Swierenga> eric: let's continue the sample size discussion on the list and in the next meeting.
15:48:56 <MartijnHoutepen> ack me
15:49:04 <Zakim> -Kathy_Wahlbin
15:49:05 <Zakim> -Liz
15:49:07 <Zakim> -EricVelleman
15:49:09 <Zakim> -Shadi
15:49:17 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone!
15:49:18 <Zakim> -MartijnHoutepen
15:49:19 <Zakim> -Sarah_Swierenga
15:49:21 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
15:49:21 <Zakim> Attendees were Liz, EricVelleman, Kathy_Wahlbin, Sarah_Swierenga, Shadi, MartijnHoutepen
15:50:09 <Kathy> Kathy has left #eval
17:20:32 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
17:20:32 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:20:32 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:20:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:20:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/12/19-eval-minutes.html trackbot
17:20:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:20:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items