13:50:02 RRSAgent has joined #eval 13:50:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/01-eval-irc 13:50:11 zakim, this will be eval 13:50:11 ok, shadi, I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM already started 13:50:37 zakim, code? 13:50:37 the conference code is 3825 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), shadi 13:51:35 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:51:35 On the phone I see +1.301.219.aaaa 13:53:22 meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force (Eval TF) Teleconference Meeting 13:53:27 chair: Eric 13:53:56 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Aug/0049.html 13:54:06 agenda+ Welcome 13:54:15 LeonieWatson has joined #eval 13:54:16 agenda+ Discussion of requirements 13:54:25 agenda+ Any other business 13:54:34 - +1.301.219.aaaa 13:54:35 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended 13:54:37 Attendees were +1.301.219.aaaa 13:54:47 morning everyone 13:55:03 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started 13:55:10 +??P15 13:55:22 + +1.514.312.aaaa 13:55:24 regrets: Tim, Vivienne 13:55:51 +??P17 13:55:52 zakim, call shadi-617 13:55:52 ok, shadi; the call is being made 13:55:53 +Shadi 13:55:54 shade, how do i link 1.514.312.aaaa to me? 13:56:02 shadi* 13:56:23 zakim, ? is really is Richard 13:56:23 I don't understand '? is really is Richard', shadi 13:56:37 zakim, aaaa is Denis 13:56:37 +Denis; got it 13:56:44 Detlev has joined #eval 13:56:45 Zakim, mute me 13:56:45 sorry, samuel, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 13:56:57 zakim, ??p15 is is Richard 13:56:57 I don't understand '??p15 is is Richard', shadi 13:57:01 Zakim, mute me 13:57:01 sorry, Detlev, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 13:57:02 zakim, aaaa is dboudreau 13:57:02 sorry, dboudreau, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 13:57:11 zakim, ??p17 is is Samuel 13:57:11 I don't understand '??p17 is is Samuel', shadi 13:57:14 zakim, denis is dboudreau 13:57:14 +dboudreau; got it 13:57:15 + +1.301.219.aabb 13:57:23 Kathy has joined #eval 13:57:31 Zakim, Detlev is Detlev_Fischer 13:57:31 sorry, Detlev, I do not recognize a party named 'Detlev' 13:57:39 richard has joined #eval 13:57:49 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:57:51 On the phone I see ??P15, dboudreau, ??P17, Shadi, +1.301.219.aabb 13:57:55 Zakim, mute me 13:57:55 sorry, Detlev, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 13:58:05 + +1.978.261.aacc 13:58:39 zakim, ??p15 is Richard 13:58:39 +Richard; got it 13:59:04 + +49.404.318.aadd 13:59:36 aabb is liz 13:59:42 zakim, mute me 13:59:44 dboudreau should now be muted 13:59:50 zakim, ??p17 is samuel 13:59:50 +samuel; got it 13:59:54 zakim, mute me 13:59:57 samuel should now be muted 13:59:59 +??P31 14:00:00 zakim,aabb is liz 14:00:04 Zakim, mute me 14:00:07 +liz; got it 14:00:11 sorry, Detlev, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 14:00:33 zakim, aacc is Kathy 14:00:33 +Kathy; got it 14:00:52 Zakim, aadd is Detlev 14:00:55 +Detlev; got it 14:00:58 zakim, unmute me 14:00:59 dboudreau should no longer be muted 14:01:42 zakim, ??p31 is LeonieWatson 14:01:44 Vincent has joined #eval 14:01:45 Eric has joined #eval 14:01:49 +LeonieWatson; got it 14:02:01 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:02:11 On the phone I see Richard, dboudreau, samuel (muted), Shadi, liz, Kathy, Detlev, LeonieWatson 14:02:19 Eric has difficulty getting on the phone 14:02:23 +??P52 14:02:44 kerstin has joined #eval 14:02:48 zakim, mute me 14:02:55 Kathy should now be muted 14:02:57 + +1.514.487.aaee 14:03:03 Hi everyone 14:03:27 scribe: Denis 14:03:36 scribenick: dboudreau 14:04:08 + +31.30.239.aaff 14:04:47 +??P56 14:05:14 +??P64 14:05:18 vivienne has joined #eval 14:05:26 zakim, aaee is Vincent 14:05:26 +Vincent; got it 14:05:51 zakim, eeff is Eric 14:05:51 sorry, Eric, I do not recognize a party named 'eeff' 14:05:53 zakim, mute me 14:05:53 Vincent should now be muted 14:06:05 Zakim, aaff is Eric 14:06:05 +Eric; got it 14:06:17 shadi, I didn't get it 14:06:35 agarrison has joined #eval 14:06:41 vivienne is here 14:06:58 zakim, mute me 14:06:59 LeonieWatson should now be muted 14:07:01 zakim, ??p56 is vivienne 14:07:01 +vivienne; got it 14:07:21 ??p64 is Alistair 14:07:36 zakim, ??p64 is Alistair 14:07:36 +Alistair; got it 14:07:51 zakim, unmute me 14:07:51 Vincent should no longer be muted 14:07:56 zakim, mute me 14:07:56 Vincent should now be muted 14:07:58 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:07:58 On the phone I see Richard, dboudreau, samuel (muted), Shadi, liz, Kathy (muted), Detlev, LeonieWatson (muted), ??P52, Vincent (muted), Eric, vivienne, Alistair 14:08:05 Zakim, ??p52 is kerstin 14:08:05 +kerstin; got it 14:08:09 shadi, are we a different number each time, or do we keep the number? 14:08:10 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:08:10 On the phone I see Richard, dboudreau, samuel (muted), Shadi, liz, Kathy (muted), Detlev, LeonieWatson (muted), kerstin, Vincent (muted), Eric, vivienne, Alistair 14:09:29 General advice, join irc first then see what line you're linked to so it's easier to connect with zakim 14:09:41 zakim, mute me 14:09:42 vivienne should now be muted 14:09:49 Zakim, mute me 14:09:49 Detlev should now be muted 14:11:07 zakim, take up agendum 2 14:11:07 agendum 2. "Discussion of requirements" taken up [from shadi] 14:12:08 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Aug/0050.html 14:12:29 zakim, mute me 14:12:29 Shadi should now be muted 14:13:12 requirements were sent (about 15), there are some examples of requirement on the w3c website, was very short extract to the mail 14:13:39 discussions already started on the mailing list, but let's focus on requirements then start filling in the methodology 14:13:41 q+ 14:13:47 any comments on the draft sent? 14:13:48 Zakim, unmute me 14:13:48 Detlev should no longer be muted 14:13:55 yes, I have looked through it 14:14:42 zakim, unmute me 14:14:42 Shadi should no longer be muted 14:14:47 Zakim, mute me 14:14:47 Detlev should now be muted 14:14:47 detlev: i think there a requirement missing on the traceability of requirements 14:14:56 zakim, unmute me 14:14:56 LeonieWatson should no longer be muted 14:15:01 zakim, unmute me 14:15:02 Kathy should no longer be muted 14:15:17 zakim, mute me 14:15:17 LeonieWatson should now be muted 14:15:22 ack me 14:15:27 ack detlev 14:15:49 q- detlev 14:16:04 zakim, mute me 14:16:04 Shadi should now be muted 14:17:16 eric: about draft sent : has anyone seen something that they do not like? 14:17:24 the objectives all look good to me 14:17:37 q+ 14:17:51 eric: sent mail directly after agenda with draft in it 14:18:22 q-Detlev 14:18:36 detlev: does this include the reference and computer assisted reference - would this be enough? 14:19:29 eric : critical part analysis bit - key scenarios - not just samples of site but critical parts - scenarios, steps to go through - not just pages individually 14:19:29 critical path = process? 14:19:45 detlev: critical accessibility sequence instead of critical path 14:20:03 ack me 14:20:09 q? 14:20:13 agenda? 14:20:29 zakim, close agendum 1 14:20:29 agendum 1, Welcome, closed 14:20:30 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:20:34 2. Discussion of requirements [from shadi] 14:20:45 detlev: crirtical interaction sequence, not accessiblity sequence 14:20:58 zakim, mute me 14:20:58 Kathy should now be muted 14:21:04 s/critical accessibility sequence/critical interaction sequence 14:21:36 zakim, mute me 14:21:36 Shadi should now be muted 14:22:05 could we re-term critical path to script or process? 14:22:34 agree with vivienne 14:22:46 +1 to Vivienne 14:23:05 ack me 14:23:11 zakim, unmute me 14:23:12 LeonieWatson should no longer be muted 14:23:14 critical process or critical script? 14:23:20 we give a script to a user team to follow to have them see the task required and follow it through to completion 14:23:52 q+ 14:24:01 [[complete task]] [[complete transaction]] [[complete process]] 14:24:06 zakim, mute me 14:24:06 Shadi should now be muted 14:24:15 +1 to process, but i've heard "scenario" over the line and it sounds good 14:24:35 q+ 14:24:59 q- 14:25:02 \==\=zakim, unmute 14:25:18 ack me 14:25:28 zakim, unmute me 14:25:28 LeonieWatson was not muted, LeonieWatson 14:25:32 vivienne will 14:25:52 zakim, unmute me 14:25:52 vivienne should no longer be muted 14:25:58 scribe: LeonieWatson 14:26:05 zakim, mute me 14:26:05 vivienne should now be muted 14:26:47 scribe: Detlev 14:26:56 q+ 14:27:04 zakim, unmute me 14:27:04 LeonieWatson was not muted, LeonieWatson 14:27:14 zakim, mute me 14:27:14 LeonieWatson should now be muted 14:27:26 zakim, mute me 14:27:26 Shadi should now be muted 14:27:51 EV: we could discuss critical path terms 14:27:56 sorry guys, it's just too much of an effort, to translate, process, the translate back the other way in time to keep up with the discussion :) 14:28:09 EV: better discuss those terms on mailin list 14:28:24 zakim, unmute me 14:28:24 vivienne should no longer be muted 14:28:27 q+ 14:28:36 q- 14:28:44 q- 14:29:08 Vivienne: Expand objectives to cover internal and external tests 14:29:16 ack vivienne 14:29:57 Vivienne: qualifiy where it was done and in what methodology 14:30:01 zakim, mute me 14:30:01 vivienne should now be muted 14:30:24 EV: tests should be usable acoss the board 14:30:41 yes, its the statement that's important so we can see how they are making the claim 14:30:44 EV: may be valid to state in Eval results 14:30:59 EV: Will send update of objectives 14:31:17 EV: Proposes discussion of target audiences 14:31:37 q+ 14:31:53 EV: Is any target audience missing? 14:32:00 ack me 14:32:06 unmute me 14:32:22 ack me 14:32:34 q+ 14:33:07 * Target Audience: 14:33:07 A01: All organization evaluating one or more websites 14:33:07 A02: Web accessibility benchmarking organizations 14:33:07 A03: Web content producers wishing to evaluate their content 14:33:08 A04: Developers of Evaluation and Repair Tools 14:33:08 A05: Policy makers and Web site owners wishing to evaluate websites 14:33:13 Vivienne: A01 All orgs: is that companies focused on web site organisations? 14:33:33 EV: Yes. A05 is for owners 14:33:39 zakim, mute me 14:33:39 vivienne should now be muted 14:34:06 ack me 14:34:15 EV: No people with disabilities on the list 14:34:17 would people with disabilities be evaluating websites? 14:34:31 I think the disability organisations might fall in with #1 14:35:04 Shadi: There may be others - one primary audience: org who wants to conduct eval of a single website 14:35:29 Shadi: other users would be scondary: policy makers, tool makers 14:35:39 for example, universities teaching accessibility evaluation? 14:35:46 Shadi: others third in line with long tem benefits 14:36:12 EV: agrres focus is on orgs evaluating websites 14:36:45 Shadi: Universities may also be an audience, but not primary 14:37:02 teaching would fall in with #1 and #2 anyway 14:37:03 zakim, mute me 14:37:03 Shadi should now be muted 14:37:25 ack me 14:37:39 EV: Mostly in standards docs there is this list given in Target Audience 14:37:44 I'm missing testers who are not involved with special organisations: freelancers 14:37:52 EV: will modify by adding primary audience 14:38:21 AG: Level of evaluation related to kind of audience 14:38:52 q+ 14:39:30 LeonieWatson has joined #eval 14:39:31 Denis: Five target audiences may be rearranged, more in the first group 14:39:49 Why not simply? 14:39:49 A01: Evaluation Organizations, Web Content Producers and Benchmarking Organizations 14:39:50 A02: Web site owners wishing to evaluate websites 14:39:50 ack me 14:39:50 A03: Developers of Evaluation and Repair Tools 14:39:50 A04: Policy makers 14:39:51 EV: List was not prescriptive 14:40:10 KP: FDreelances missing in the list of Target audiences 14:40:10 aren't freelances in with #1? 14:40:25 q+ 14:40:25 q+ 14:40:35 zakim, ??p31 is LeonieWatson 14:40:35 I already had ??P31 as LeonieWatson, LeonieWatson 14:40:47 EC: Freelance evaluators not always a web producer - could be in first or second 14:41:13 KP: evaluators can have different roles and allocations 14:41:50 EV: evaluators may be orgs or freelancers, could be described more openly 14:41:59 q- 14:42:04 q? 14:42:08 ack me 14:42:37 Kathy: Target audiences: nothing about designers, but they are key people 14:42:47 do I have to mute me and how? 14:42:57 q+ 14:43:08 Kathy:EV: where should designers be added? 14:43:29 q+ 14:43:31 [[Somebody who wants to evaluate a website. Examples include: ..., ..., ...]] 14:43:42 q? 14:43:44 agree with shadi 14:43:53 agree also with shadi 14:43:55 zakim, unmute me 14:43:55 LeonieWatson should no longer be muted 14:43:59 mute me 14:44:00 mute me 14:44:01 +1 to shadi 14:44:01 Kathy: Designers and usabilities engineers should go together 14:44:04 I like the way Shadi puts it 14:44:06 zakim, mute me 14:44:06 Kathy should now be muted 14:44:16 zakim, mute me 14:44:16 kerstin should now be muted 14:44:39 q+ to repeat what i put in IRC 14:44:48 LW: Just variations of methodology - describes variants of methodology 14:44:52 ack LeonieWatson 14:45:04 page selection applies to clients, not so much for designers 14:45:28 we also evaluate a page before it goes live 14:45:35 EV: Methodology should focus on evaluation 14:45:54 EV: people making web sites is not primary 14:45:58 q+ 14:46:00 q+ 14:46:06 agree with shadi on the proposed format on IRC format. 14:46:14 q+ 14:46:25 zakim, mute me 14:46:25 LeonieWatson should now be muted 14:46:36 DB: Aim is to break down requirements for different parts of the team 14:47:02 DB: Most important to focus on people concerned with evaluation proper, not other roles 14:47:15 q- 14:47:17 +1 to Denis 14:47:18 ack me 14:47:18 shadi, you wanted to repeat what i put in IRC 14:47:26 ack me 14:47:31 zakim, ack me 14:47:31 I see vivienne, samuel on the speaker queue 14:48:06 Shadi: List of examples of target audiences can be given 14:48:44 Shadi: Methodology will also have educational aspects, for teaching, self-learning: secondary audience 14:48:49 zakim, ack me 14:48:50 unmuting vivienne 14:48:50 I see samuel on the speaker queue 14:49:28 Vivienne: Designers want to use a test for checking even before site goes live 14:49:57 Methodology should be also useful on an isolated page level, as design input 14:50:22 ack me 14:50:27 zakim, mute me 14:50:27 vivienne should now be muted 14:50:33 Vivienne: those users can be added as secondary 14:51:09 Shadi: Methodology can enlist scenarios of use across audiences and levels 14:51:17 q? 14:51:35 imho, all users should be added as secondary, whether they'Re designers, analysts, usability experts, content writers, programers and whatnot 14:51:53 Samuel: Methodology shoulld apply to all stages of the life cycle 14:52:02 there is an echo, does someone need to mute? 14:52:04 zakim, mute me 14:52:05 samuel should now be muted 14:52:13 EV: will adapt requirements text 14:52:16 zakim, mute me 14:52:16 dboudreau should now be muted 14:52:25 EV: Dicussing requirements list 14:52:35 -LeonieWatson 14:52:38 q+ 14:52:52 q+ 14:53:00 q+ 14:53:02 EV: ANy requirements that should niot be in the list 14:53:18 Detlev: some of the requirements seem problematic 14:53:24 q+ 14:53:48 ...for example, what is "unique interpretation" and would it conflict with "independent of tools" 14:53:54 q+ 14:53:58 ack detl 14:54:05 q- later 14:54:27 zakim, unmute me 14:54:27 dboudreau should no longer be muted 14:54:57 DF: issues: uniwue interpretaiton, Replicability party in conflict; documentation should be added 14:55:12 ack dboudreau 14:55:24 DB: Unique interpretation looks difficult to achiewve 14:55:38 ack me 14:55:40 zakim, mute me 14:55:40 dboudreau should now be muted 14:55:40 EV: Must be discussed in more detail 14:56:23 Samuel: R0e difficult - it could help to use close closed questions (yes/no) 14:56:52 s/R0e /R03 14:56:52 zakim, unmute me 14:56:52 vivienne should no longer be muted 14:56:56 zakim, mute me 14:56:56 samuel should now be muted 14:56:57 ack me 14:57:31 Vivienne: Question whether evaluation should involve recommendation and assistance to improving matters 14:57:40 zakim, mute me 14:57:41 vivienne should now be muted 14:57:47 EV: will be added to list of requirements 14:57:50 ack me 14:58:18 Shadi: Agrees with Vivienne - should also include things on reporting 14:58:29 I agree, reporting is very important - how, to what extent? 14:58:41 Shadi: 2 Point: no direct reference to WCAG 2.0 14:58:58 Shadi: Link to WCAG is important 14:58:59 should also include to what level of WCAG 2.0 the evaluation includes 14:59:23 Shadi: Question os whether reference to techniques can or should be the only source 14:59:50 q+ 14:59:51 Shadi: SO techniques should be mentioned but not be the only point of reference 15:00:31 Shadi: Methodoogy should be able to be used with other techniques as well 15:00:32 zakim, close queue 15:00:37 EV: Time is over 15:00:55 ok, shadi, the speaker queue is closed 15:01:04 EV: Will send out a new versino of the document, invites discussion of Req in the mailing list 15:01:09 bye all 15:01:10 zakim, unmute me 15:01:12 bye all 15:01:12 Bye evryone 15:01:14