13:27:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #er
13:27:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-er-irc
13:28:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:28:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #er
13:28:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3794
13:28:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:28:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group Teleconference
13:28:04 <trackbot> Date: 05 February 2014
13:28:52 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM has now started
13:28:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:29:01 <shadi> zakim, ipcaller is me
13:29:01 <Zakim> +shadi; got it
13:32:07 <carlos> carlos has joined #er
13:32:50 <Zakim> +??P11
13:41:31 <shadi> just a sec
13:41:58 <carlos> ok
13:46:38 <samuelm> samuelm has joined #er
13:51:21 <shadi> hi samuel, are you joining the call?
13:51:35 <shadi> :(
13:56:04 <shadi> [[A cookie is a name-value pair that it is stored in the browser of the user [HTTPCOOKIES]. Cookies contain information relevant to the website that is being rendered and often include authentication and session information. This information is relevant to other use cases, like the crawling tool described later.]]
13:56:30 <shadi> [[Similarly to content negotiation, evaluation tools can control the HTTP headers to exchange cookies with the web server to imitate particular situations. Evaluation tools can allow the tool users to set the behavior, in particular in combination with test automation functionality. For example, tool users can set the evaluation tools to accept or reject cookies on particular web pages, or to send cookies with specific parameters on other web pages, to evoke web appl
13:56:30 <shadi> ications to generate particular content.]]
13:59:13 <shadi> scribe: shadi
13:59:54 <shadi> SAZ: describing the function of an evaluation tool rather than describing what a cookie is
14:01:44 <shadi> CV: some people don't know what cookies are
14:01:52 <shadi> SAZ: could add the reference
14:04:04 <shadi> SAZ: the first approach explains cookies but does not explain the tool function at all
14:04:22 <shadi> ...this is what we need to change
14:04:26 <shadi> ...to describe the actual functionality rather than the technology
14:04:57 <shadi> Topic: Editorial Approach
14:05:25 <shadi> Topic: concept of "Evaluation Tool"
14:05:42 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-AERT#tools
14:07:15 <samuelm> samuelm has joined #er
14:08:04 <shadi> SAZ: think the features could be more applicable than to "web accessibility evaluation tools" only
14:08:30 <shadi> ...so needed broader term, and calling them "evaluation tools" now
14:08:55 <shadi> CV: seems OK but would start the list with web accessibility evaluation tools
14:10:53 <shadi> Topic: Abstract
14:10:55 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-AERT#abstract
14:12:03 <shadi> SAZ: important to review this section
14:12:13 <shadi> ...it sets the tone and the framing for the document
14:12:23 <shadi> ...also a brief synposis of what's to come
14:12:43 <shadi> ...we need to agree on what is in it, even though it may change over time
14:13:36 <shadi> CV: like it at first but will look at it more closeky
14:13:51 <shadi> SAZ: also introduction and the (example) use cases there
14:14:59 <shadi> SAZ: often use cases work better than trying to enumerate audiences
14:15:23 <shadi> ...did not draw out a separate section for the use cases to keep the document simple
14:15:57 <shadi> Topic: Grouping of Features
14:15:58 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/WD-AERT/ED-AERT#toc
14:16:11 <shadi> CV: mostly like it except 2.1 and 2.2
14:16:21 <samuelm> Question: as far as I understand, the organization of the document has been revamped, sections from 2.2 to 2.5 are deemed to be extracted from the following sections, kept from the previous version, right?
14:17:46 <shadi> Response: yes - this document version proposes a new grouping/organization of the features
14:18:23 <shadi> CV: don't like traversing
14:18:41 <shadi> SAZ: is it the wording? would the grouping work if the heading title was different?
14:20:32 <shadi> CV: don't like the limitation of 2.1.6
14:20:33 <samuelm> agree that traversing probably doesn't reflect well the goal, maybe content retrieval / acquisition / etc. (traversing for me seems applicable to crawling specially)
14:20:45 <shadi> SAZ: but the grouping overall works?
14:20:53 <shadi> CV: more or less, not like 2.1.7
14:21:59 <samuelm> regarding grouping: I don't agree with 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 into testing functionality
14:22:34 <samuelm> ... or maybe I did not understand well those points
14:23:23 <samuelm> the point is they do not seem deal with what you are testing against, but what is your test subject
14:24:26 <shadi> 2.2.1 is intended to describe tool capability in testing different formats, 2.2.2 in testing content in different langauges, and 2.2.3 in testing content snippets
14:24:37 <shadi> ...seems that this is not clear to CV either
14:26:32 <samuelm> I understand specific test cases may be needed for different formats (clearly), different languages (e.g. readability) and content snippets (e.g. do not try to validate as xml document), but do not think they fit that way
14:27:02 <samuelm> plus, I think content-snippets should be first and overall a way to retrieve contents
14:32:29 <Zakim> -??P11
14:32:29 <Zakim> -shadi
14:32:30 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM has ended
14:32:30 <Zakim> Attendees were shadi
14:33:41 <samuelm> k
14:34:01 <shadi> thanks samuel!
14:34:10 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
14:34:10 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:34:10 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
14:34:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:34:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-er-minutes.html trackbot
14:34:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:34:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items