See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 28 February 2014
<scribe> Scribe: Sharron
Shawn: Deadline is today
... let's look. Thanks Eric and Vicki, Shawn, Bim for commenting and AnnaBelle for noting she needed to abstain.
<Howard> I did review the some of the comments
Shawn: As we go throguh these, can someone put notes in the wiki as we go through these?
AnnaBelle: I am willing to try, may need some help.
<shadi> changes of context
Shawn: First one is from Sylvie, not sure that we can resolve.
Shadi: Not sure what is the intent of the comment
Sharron: I think it is the fact
that it is vague and soemwhat unlcear as to the intention. The
technical definition may be too broad.
... the fact that Eric suggested a drop down menu as an example indicates that.
Shadi: Refer to change of context.
Shawn: Great, next point is the
need to link to the terminology, there was agreement about
... Next comment was about "supercede." All subsequent comments were to leave this as is with no submission of a comment from EO
AnnaBelle: updates wiki
Shawn: Next points are about clarity on different types of web sites. First is clarity of wording and second point is a comment on the content - end to end testing of apps.
Shadi: To expect that you must evaluate every single possibility within a web process is unrealistic. The process of end-to-end testing is covered elsewhere in any case.
<yatil> +1 for words
Shawn: That addresses the content suggestion, about the wording, I suggested a rewrite [reads] any concerns with that?
AnnaBelle: updates wiki
Shawn: In step 2C there is a question from Anthony about whether this is redundant, is it covered elsewhere. Comments were that no, it was not covered elsewhere.
<shawn> Sharron: parenthesis in middle of phrase is a little jarring
<Bim> +1 to moving the link
Shawn: next in step 2D . Anthony had some lack of clarity/understanding.
Sharron: The parenthetical phrase is a bit unsettling
Howard: Without the parenteses it will need to be reworded...
Shadi: I think I have the idea, don't need to wordsmaith entirely.
Shawn: To summarize our comment would be to remove parentheses, delete phrase "to provide the web site" and consider moving WCAG link to first sentence.
<shawn> The purpose of this selection is to ensure that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website with reasonable confidence. -> The purpose of this selection is to ensure reasonable confidence that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website.
<shawn> The purpose of this selection is to ensure that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website with reasonable confidence. -> The purpose of this selection is to provide reasonable confidence that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website.
<Bim> +1 to Shawn's wording
<shawn> In cases where it is feasible to evaluate all web pages, this sampling procedure can be skipped and the selected sample is considered to be the entire website in the remaining steps of the conformance evaluation procedure.
Shawn: This needs
... "You can skip the sampling procedure and the selected sample is the entire website
Bim: ...and treat the entire web site as the selected sample
<Bim> treat the entire web site as the selected sample
<shawn> In cases where it is feasible to evaluate all web pages, you can skip this sampling procedure, then the "selected sample" in the emaining steps of the conformance evaluation procedure is the entire website.
<shadi> Web pages explaining accessibility features of the websites;
<shadi> Web pages with information and help on the use of the website;
<shadi> Web pages explaining settings, preferences, options, shortcuts, etc.;
<shadi> Web pages with contact information, directions, and support instructions.
Shawn: Next one is in Step 3,
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to strengthen
Shawn: We like the quiet links in
general, but if there is a case where the dependency is
important to understand the current content, maybe there is a
stronger way to indicate that.
... Maybe our comment is something about the places where the importance of dependency is high that there is strong indcation of that.
Shadi: Consider making those
dependencies more clear
... ..and consider reducing such dependencies where possible
Wayne: This is not an easy document and I don't see how to do this without dependencies. Some times in a complex document like this, there is a dependency graph or chart.
Shadi: We do try to make that clear in the beginning
Eric: This section is hard to read, if instead of this complex structure, could we sayI wonder if many of those steps could just be summarized with "Include all web pages (and web page states) that were identified in Step 2.a-e."?
Shadi: This is related to simplifying the dependencies and identifying the links. The brackets of parentheses or quotations to set those off.
<shawn> "Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation." -> "Include into the selected sample for evaluation all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website."
<shawn> "Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation." -> "Include in the selected sample all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website."
Shadi: could be grammatically improved. So there may be three parts: 1) avoid dependencies 2) the grammatical tendency to remove the dangling ends of sentences and 3) in the places where we need to reference another section do we need parenthese or brackets?
<shawn> ^^^ comment ^^^
Sharron: I thought we had decided last week that #3 was not specific to this document?
Shawn: Yes we decided that it was more of a User Agent issue
Shadi: So we should try not to ...
Shawn: have them in the middle of
... Suzette has pointed out that links in the middle of a sentence are very distracting and sometimse hard to understand. So we have tried when possible to put links at the end of sentences
... We are skipping the next as Eric said there is not much we can do...next is Purpose of this Methodology, second sentence.
Paul: Reads Vicki's comment, ending with the suggestion "Periodic evaluation is necessary for monitoring the accessibility performance of websites over time".
Sharron: +1 to Vicki's suggestion
Shadi: prefer important to necessary since it was used in sentence before
Paul: Reads next comment: "Web accessibility monitoring activities who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time." Howard suggests replacing with "Web accessibility monitoring *entities* who want to benchmark...
<shadi> [[Web accessibility monitoring activities who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time.]]
Sharron: Could you say "web accessibility monitors..." and leave off activities or entitities
<AnnaBelle> +1 to Shawn it needs to be a person noun to be parallel
Shawn: Or evaluators?
Wayne: yes that's fine
<shawn> Web accessibility evaluators who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time.
<shawn> Web accessibility monitors\ who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time.
Shadi: we were thinking of the
need to keep it general - you could monitoring your own site
over time and there are also monitors of many web sites (like
UN survey) etc
... This is a controversial subject, the scoring aspect. So even though it is course and not necessarily precisely accurate, it does show progress over time. Others take a different position. We will meet with WCAG-WC on Tuesday morning and if EO wants to send representation, you are welcome to join.
Wayne: So what is the basis to consider the scoring has meaning, validity?
Shawn: Have to call tangent on this.
Shadi: EO was gentle this time...what did you see this round?
Shawn: It is much better.
Sharron: I agree, the document is better.
Shawn: The issue for documents like this is to balance the technical aspects with clarity of language. Are we at this point now? That we have confidence in the technical and formal aspects and take a pass for readability?
Shadi: Yes, this is what we have
expected all along. If there are those kinds of pointers, I am
looking for that from EO
... and pople can send their own comments without EO consensus.
Sharron: But today is the deadline.
Howard: There was one thing that
looks to me like a glaring mistake.
... it says methodology requirement in a way different form all others
Shawn: It's a typo, good catch put it into that wiki section
Shawn: Thanks to Sylvie and Vicki
and to AnnaBelle who looked at Easy Checks open issues
... First is the instructions for Windows/Mac...suggestions are there.
Sharron: My preference was not strong
<Howard> I like parens
<Howard> 1 or 2
Shawn: Editor's discretion for 1 or 2?
AnnaBelle: It is important to me that the C is capitalized in Cmd
Eric: Use the command symbol
Shawn: Doesn't work with the screen reader
<paulschantz> Unicode for the command symbol is ⌘
<yatil> <abbr title="command">⌘</abbr>
Shawn: Next is the order of using
... currently we have Tools, WCAG, practicing with BAD etc...what order should these be in? Different suggestions are posted
<Wayne> to Shawn, this might help with Apple names: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
Paul: Reads two suggestions for reordering the sub-sections
Sharron: I like Vivki's suggestion
<yatil> +1 for Vicki’s suggestion
<Bim> ac k me
<AnnaBelle> +1 vor Vicki's suggestion
<paulschantz> +1 Vicki
<Howard> +1 vicki
Shawn: We need to have (optional) with the tools in response to public comments
Shawn: and looking now at basic structure...
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/checks#limgs Images showing linearized and changed display (click to show images)
<Howard> New version is much better
Shawn: This is a stacked redo of this illustration. Take a look, weigh in about the display - stacked vs not stacked, and should we collapse it?
Annabelle: I like the stacking much better than the table grid
<paulschantz> looks great
Sharron: +1 to stacked, collapsed by default
<yatil> like it
<Howard> much prefer the stacking
<Bim> +1 to collapse by default
Wayne: One of the first examples I have been able to read without modification.
AnnaBelle: That's awesome Wayne!
Wayne: I have been away a long time and I love these examples
Shawn: Where we are with
EasyChecks: There are 1 or 2 wording questions from Eric's
comments, and other than that I think the comments are all
addressed. Remaining things are illustrations. Bottom line with
that is for participants to stay in touch. There are a couple
... we have published it as a Working Group draft. We had intended to publish a version that is not called a draft by CSUN.
... option 1 is to work hard, finish illustrations and give everyone a short time to approve and publish it as a version beyond draft by CSUN
... option 2 is to update what is there and change it to Editor's Draft
Sharron: What is the difference between Editor's Draft and WG Draft?
Shawn: For most of the world, not much
<shawn> the "published" http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html
AnnaBelle: I really want to finish the illustrations and add to the Published version for CSUN
<shawn> 1. Editor's Draft
<shawn> 2. Working Draft
Shawn: We could move the illustrations into the published draft and chang ethe title to Editor's Draft. If we get EOWG to approve it, it would no longer be a draft at all.
<shawn> 3. done w/o Draft
<shawn> Sharron: do usability testing before call it done w/o Draft
Sharron: I would suggest we get to the Edotor's draft stage for sure, and wonder if the usability testing at CSUN might inform our final version.
<paulschantz> I like Sharron's idea
AnnaBelle: But we could still change after the usability testing, whether called a draft or not.
Howard: I would not want to publish with the @@ still in there
Shawn: Yes absolutely
Hoard: So what is the advantage for it being a non-draft by CSUN?
Shawn: That is what we need to decide.
Sharron: I am happy to have a very polished draft and do usability testing with that
<shawn> it says: "This is a Working Draft approved by the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG). Please send any suggestions, edits, or comments to the publicly-archived list: email@example.com
<shawn> Status on 20 December 2013: Most of the text content is complete. We are now working on the illustrations, which we plan to finish in early 2014."
Shadi: I think if it is ready for
use, we should reflect that in our title, we do not want to
send mixed messages.
... want to be conssitent in our references to document stages and be clear about whether it is ready or not ready for public use
AnnaBelle: I do think that rather than the usability test the issue of whether to move the document out of Draft staus, is the question of whether the entire group is happy with the illustrations. If we can move the illustrations to the published version, once the group as a whole is happy with it, it should no longer be a draft.
Bim: And the draft status itself may be a distractin. We want people to use it and give feedback without thinking they need to make suggestions for improvement.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to reply to Bim
Shawn: I am glad you brought up that point is that if you want people to provide constructive feedback they provide that more readily if they think it is not done.
<Bim> ok, glad to bow to your greater experience
Shadi: I don't understand where we are. The content is complete, we are only working on illustrations but we want to do usability testing? Is it ready or not?
Shawn: Yes we want people to use it and we have announced that we want them to use it.
Shadi: Why is it a draft?
Shawn: There are still items unresolved
Wayne: We are not going to CSUN iwht @@s are we?
Shawn: Hope not, want to help?
Shawn: Ther eis a link to illustrations inventory.
Sharron: I'll put ATAG outreach on Actions for all
Shawn: need to find a place for
brunch on Sunday at CSUN
... next week look at Images Tutorial, that is a to-do for EVERYONE
... and think more about ARIA-Overview and Easy Chacks.
<Howard> bye everyone
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ezakim, call EricE-Skype// Succeeded: s/tot he/to the/ Succeeded: s/Shadi"/Shadi:/ Succeeded: s/7me lol// Succeeded: s/ahve/have/ Succeeded: s/thing/think/ Found Scribe: Sharron Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron Default Present: Shawn, Sharron, AnnaBelle, Bim, EricE, Shadi, Howard, PaulSchantz, +1.562.256.aaaa, Wayne Present: Shawn Sharron AnnaBelle Bim EricE Shadi Howard PaulSchantz +1.562.256.aaaa Wayne Regrets: Sylvie Jan Vicki_(maybe_Andrew Anthony)_[No_response:_Wayne Helle Suzette Denis Shadi] Found Date: 28 Feb 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/28-eo-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]