See also: IRC log
SA: Orienting everyone to W3C meetings and processes.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
SA: Zakim is the conference bridge we use. You
can give commands for muting/unmuting, adding/removing yourself to/from a queue
to speak.
... We use IRC bots (automated programmes that help run meetings). RRSAgent
helps with recording the minutes for example.
KS: Are those minutes already available?
SA: The minutes should be available from the link just displayed by RRSagent (see above)
VC: Had trouble connecting through xLight SIP client.
SA: Responding to general IRC/Zakim questions.
SA: Hopefully everyone is up to date with the TF work statement.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf
SA: Any questions or comments about the work proposed for teh TF?
<vivienne> it looks great to me
<sds> no, seems good for me
s/teh//the/
<Tim> Are we going to use any of the old TSDTF work in our new committee?
Detlev: asked about multitude of types of evaluation and should this all be incorporated in one statement?
Shadi: stated that this is something we'll be looking it
<LeonieWatson> DF: Will we be looking at policy and training?
Detlev: asked about methodology, scope, whether it's a one-time assessment, selecting pages etc
<LeonieWatson> DF: There is often more to a methodology.
Shadi: that is beyond the scope for this project
<LeonieWatson> SA: My feeling is that this could be beyond the scope of what we're doing.
Tim: is any other work available that we can use?
<LeonieWatson> TB: Is any of the previous work that's been done useful to the TF's activity?
SA: We'll be focusing on the overall approach for
evaluating a website.
... Right now the idea is to develop an overall proceedure, how do I select
pages/representative pages, advice on testing, and how do I aggregate those
results.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/
SA: There are links to related WAI activities on the TF homepage.
KHS: So we're preparing for another group to create test suites for evaluation tools?
SA: Yes.
... Another piece of W3C formality - We're a task force, under the umbrella of
two working groups. Traditionally TFs are not decision making bodies, so our
work will be signed off by our parent working groups.
<dboudreau> So, the work of this tf is mainly to work on procedures and methodology, while test suites are to be developed in the wg themselves, is that correct?
EV: I've been at the Accessibility Foundation in
the Netherlands, and worked on the UWEM accessibility methodology a couple of
years back.
... Idea is to come up with a unified web evaluation methodology.
<shadi> to denis: yes -- but we may identify that there is a need for additional guidance on testing in the context of conformance evaluation
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=48225&public=1
SA: Quick 30 second introductions from everyone.
<shadi> Tim Boland
<shadi> Denis Boudreau
<shadi> Vivienne Conway
<shadi> Michael Cooper
<shadi> Detlev Fischer
<shadi> Elizabeth Fong
<shadi> Vincent Francois
<shadi> Alistair Garrison
<shadi> Emmanuelle Gutierrez y Restrepo
<shadi> Katie Haritos-Shea
<shadi> [Kerstin Probiesch]
<shadi> [Roberto Scano]
<shadi> Samuel Sirois
<shadi> Eric Velleman
<shadi> [Votis Konstantinos]
<shadi> Kathleen Wahlbin
<shadi> Richard Warren
<shadi> Leonie Watson
<vincent> To illustrate our voice exchanges : http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=48225&public=1&order=standing
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf#timeline
SA: We need to start looking at requirements.
... We're all agreed that a common methodology is needed, but there are lots
of open questions.
SA: Over the next four weeks we'll put together a
clear set of requirements.
... Weekly telecon will be at the same time each week, and will use the same
pass code/IRC channel.
<Detlev_Fischer> http://www.bitvtest.eu/eval-tf-problems