See also: IRC log
Eric - Recap on short title
large agreement for waem
<AmyChen> +1
shadi - people are not so convinced that naming is important. Outreach aspects are important to consider.
shadi - using website might not be the most up to date term
shadi - web information systems was not opposed by EOWG
<AmyChen> +1
<kerstin> I asked some people to speak out WAEM in german, with strange results like wäm, waaaaaem, waaaaim :-)
<AmyChen> +1
shadi - what do people think of web information systems
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk about "website"
shadi - should web information systems be used in place of websites
<Zakim> dboudreau, you wanted to talk about "nice sounding acronyms"
dboudreau - WISE as an ackronym might be better than WAEM - for outreach the term needs to be captivating
dboudreau - we should try for an ackronym which would sum up what we are trying to achieve
eric - to get WISE we would need the term Web Information System
<Zakim> Nethermind, you wanted to talk about reception of acronyms by business stakeholders in big business
elle - from big business perspective - ackronym needs to sum up what we are trying to achieve exactly. Website as a term is dated, however, Web Information Systems might not be procise either
<AmyChen> I liked the short name WCAG-EM, gets away from needing acronym
speaker? Possibly WCAG should come up with the ackroynm
<kerstin> +1 for WCAG-EM
<dboudreau> +1 for WCAG-EM unless we can come up with something more creative with either WISE, AWARE or EQUAL
<Nethermind> agree with AmyChen and dboudreau
<kerstin> +1 for dboudreau :-)
eric - the ackronym issue will continue to be discussed
<kerstin> waaaaaem :-) geman
<dboudreau> at least with WCAG-EM, nobody needs to wonder about pronunciation… we've all learned to pronounce WCAG differently already ;p
eric - will try and finalise ackronym issue - place it on the agenda for next week
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<SarahSwierenga> +1 on voting on the narrowed list of names
shadi - probably not something which will reach a solution for next week
shadi - WCAG EM had alot of support
shadi - it is something which will require a lot of thought as for easier promotion a good ackronym is important
<AmyChen> including website/web information system in the subtitle would be good
shadi - more ideas - playing with other terms like Web Information System
eric - place it on agenda for next week
eric - next point table of contents
eric - there was low feedback on the table of contents, so lets discuss
eric - no responses from "is this table of contents unusable"
eric - overview of table of contents - trying to frame the table of contents in terms of typical standards document
eric - no responses "is there anything missing"
eric - requirements document covers sections 1 - 5
eric - section 6 - expertise for evaluating
Nethermind - question could be under 7.4 - is there anything which covers iterative checks.
Nethermind - recommendation - how to cover iterative testing (automated testing, user acceptance testing).
Amychen - iterative processes - weren't they covered in the scope. Possibly you might want to expand it in 7.4.
Amychen - What was the discussion about splitting the methodology
Eric - we need to mention that people with disabilities our involved
Amychen - order of document is not as important as content. What were the two things which people suggested splitting
Eric - it was between technical part and overview - but this is something for later
Tim - important to encourage in document evaluation during development of web systems
Tim - are we looking at different roles of evaluators - possibly it could be difficult to fit all roles into the same document.
<Nethermind> agree RE: different roles and the expansion of this document, dboudreau has a good document for role based accessibility requirements
<dboudreau> yep, i do ;p
Tim - normative and formative recommendations should be split out
<Tim> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer
<dboudreau> http://alpha.gcwwwtemplates.tbs-sct.ircan.gc.ca/theme-clf2-nsi2/accessRespBreakdown-eng.html Accessibility responsibility breakdown (WCAG 2.0)
dboudreau - this is what elle was referring to.
<Tim> QA Framework Primer - #3 Role-Based View
dboudreau - this could be a way to split the methodology into roles.
<Nethermind> dboudreau, totally agree
dboudreau - often asked why there is not a seperate evaluation method for development and maintainenace of web systems.
eric - could be a problem to solve later in the evaluation methodology
eric - should also keep in mind roles
<Zakim> dboudreau, you wanted to talk about "production processes vs maintenance processes"
dboudreau - also we discussed preliminary and deeper evaluations
eric - this was not the same thing as iterative
amychen - conformance claim should be made when the website is built. Is there a wiki or some way to all look at the documents we are creating
eric - we are planning to put all this information in a webpage - however, shadi mentioned a wiki
amychen - wiki would be great
<Kathy> that would be great
<Nethermind> agreed
<Nethermind> it's hard for me to follow email threads
shadi - wiki could be made for the group, it can over complicate things however
shadi - sometimes it does not allow public to tell the difference between raw content and agreed content
eric - it would be good to allow everyone to add things directly, with content edited
shadi - editing / acknowledgements takes a lot of resource
<Mike_Elledge> Could be very useful for collaboration...identifying our edits with our initials wld also permit discussion...
eric - like mailing list as its easier
amychen - commenting on document would be more active if wiki was used
eric - I will think about wiki to see how much work is envolved - on agenda for next time
kathy - email could be made easier with clearer threads
<AmyChen> +1
<Nethermind> +1
<dboudreau> +1 to kathy though it's always been a problem in every W3C WG
eric - agree, it is difficult to follow threads currently
shadi - agree also
shadi - better to send more emails if it allows subjects to remain clear - with clear threads
shadi - Eric and shadi to think about how best to manage changes to documents etc...
eric - proposal to take table of contents, format it and put it into a document online
eric - which is best way to discuss, should be take it section by section
<dboudreau> +1 to breaking it down yes
<AmyChen> +1
eric - we need to flesh out the different sections using the discussion list
eric - any other business, 1) we have been gathering information about different evaluation methodologies, keep sending in well documented evaluation methods
<ericvelleman> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Website_Accessibility_Evaluation_Methodologies>
shadi - wiki of research and development groups will include links to all the collected evaluation methods
eric - 2) use cases and scenarios - it would be useful to make links to these also
shadi - different use cases for people conducting evaluations or reasons for having an evaluation conducted would be useful to collect
shadi - these could be useful when testing the applicability of the method we create
shadi - reminder about daylight saving in Europe - and the shift in US time for meeting, one week later the US will then shift also
Mike - confused between level of detail to provide
Mike - we have concentrated on public methods, but it would be useful to share methods that we use
eric - sharing methods would be good
mike - we have been focusing on the public domain, but would be willing to share internal methods
elle - more templated method the better