AU Teleconference (Monday, April 8, 2002)

Telephone: +1.617.761.6200
Conference number: 2894

Agenda:

1. Technique additions: continue review of proposed technique edits and additions. See latest techniques draft.
2. Real time authoring: see thread entitled "suggestions for Prompting of Real-time/live authored co" on list
3. Purpose of Compliance page: Resolve the scope and purpose of the AU compliance site. See discussion during joint call with EO on Feb. 11.

Attendees:

JR: Jan Richards
JT: Jutta Treviranus
JB: Judy Brewer
HS: Heather Swayne
PJ: Phill Jenkins
KHS: Katie Haritos-Shea
CV: Carlos Velasco

Regrets:

CMN: Charles McCathieNevile

Action Items:

• JB: Write (with JR) blurb to IG list to collect list of tools used.
• PJ: Write message to author sites to collect list of tools used.
• CV: Send list of tools he has compiled.
• JR: Speak with Carlos and Ian about putting together a review template.

Minutes:

Purpose of Compliance page:

JT: EO has informally requested a more complete tools page. More comprehensive reviews - as a resource for authoring tool purchase.

JT: UA compliance page much easier to do. There are for

JT: Original intent of tools page was to determine what was out there. What techniques were being used.

PJ: Beyond the charter. Maybe the developers could self-evaluate.

KHS, HS, JR: It is WAY to large an undertaking.

DECISION: We will not eval all tools.

JT: Who would eval the reviews?

PJ: There would have to be a process for self-evaluations.

PJ: Developers are interested in selling the other features (ease of use, etc) as well as accessibility features.

JT: Should this go back to EO with this.

HS: We already have pretty good disclaimers on the tools page.

JB: EO has a continuing interest in how we present our evaluations.

HS: We welcome feedback.

JR: I propose removing tools that we do not have evals for.

JB: We should be adding not removing. We could say we are building a resource.

JR: There could be thousands.

KHS: Thinks its useful to list what's out there.

JT: Just examples of the tools in the classes.

JB: ACTION ITEM: Will take action item to write blurb to IG list for input.

PJ: ACTION ITEM: Will take message to author sites - "what tools are being used"

CV: ACTION ITEM: Send list of tools he has compiled.

JB: We should make collaboration reviews easier.

JR: ACTION ITEM: Speak with Carlos and Ian about putting together a review. With a template.

JB: How to we review reviews?

JT: Usually informal presentation to group.

JB: Flags problem on "When possible" company informed in disclaimer.

JT: Two issues - 1. self eval process 2. Outside evaluation

JT: Outside group evaluations (2 weeks provided to developer before posting).

DECISION: 2 weeks is OK

JT: Notifying the group about an evaluation.

JT: GROUP EVALUATION

1. Notify the group before an eval starts

2. Notify the developer before eval starts - STANDARD FORM

3. Notify the developer after eval finished and give 2 weeks - STANDARD FORM

4. Include developer response - factual edits to review by reviewer, we will link to developer rebuttals

5. There is disagreement - dialog is good, even if time lines are blown.

6. Group should not publish review until there is resolution of issues.

7. We can say - published without feedback

8. The template should include a statement about whether the developer responded.