IRC log of eval on 2011-12-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:50:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:50:18 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:50:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eval
14:50:22 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
14:50:23 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:50:23 [trackbot]
Date: 08 December 2011
14:50:23 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:51:21 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
14:51:23 [Zakim]
14:51:56 [houtepen]
zakim, mute me
14:51:56 [Zakim]
sorry, houtepen, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
14:53:00 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #eval
14:53:36 [agarrison]
agarrison has joined #eval
14:54:45 [sds]
sds has joined #eval
14:55:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.978.443.aaaa
14:55:28 [Zakim]
14:55:29 [Zakim]
14:55:29 [Zakim]
14:55:40 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is me
14:55:40 [Zakim]
+shadi; got it
14:55:54 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:55:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see houtepen, shadi, +1.978.443.aaaa
14:56:02 [Kathy]
zakim, aaaa is kathy
14:56:02 [Zakim]
+kathy; got it
14:56:17 [SarahSwierenga]
SarahSwierenga has joined #eval
14:57:09 [Zakim]
14:57:22 [Zakim]
14:57:31 [ssirois]
zakim, ??P9 is me
14:57:31 [Zakim]
+ssirois; got it
14:58:04 [Zakim]
14:58:08 [ssirois]
zakim, mute me
14:58:09 [Zakim]
ssirois should now be muted
14:58:12 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has joined #eval
14:58:33 [houtepen]
zakim, mute me
14:58:33 [Zakim]
houtepen should now be muted
14:59:18 [shadi]
scribe: Sarah
14:59:23 [Detlev]
zakim, mute me
14:59:23 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
14:59:24 [shadi]
scribenick: SarahSwierenga
15:00:03 [AmyChen]
AmyChen has joined #eval
15:00:18 [Zakim]
15:00:21 [vivienne]
vivienne has joined #eval
15:00:23 [shadi]
agenda+ Welcome
15:00:30 [agarrison]
Zakim, ipcaller is me
15:00:30 [Zakim]
+agarrison; got it
15:00:31 [shadi]
agenda+ Table of Contents
15:00:33 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:00:33 [Zakim]
kathy should now be muted
15:00:38 [LeonieW]
LeonieW has joined #eval
15:00:38 [shadi]
agenda+ Specific discussion
15:00:41 [Zakim]
+ +31.30.239.aabb
15:00:56 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see houtepen (muted), shadi, kathy (muted), Sarah, ssirois (muted), Detlev (muted), agarrison, +31.30.239.aabb
15:01:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.502.632.aacc
15:01:08 [shadi]
zakim, aabb is Eric
15:01:09 [Zakim]
+Eric; got it
15:01:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.925.694.aadd
15:01:54 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
15:02:00 [Nethermind]
Nethermind has joined #eval
15:02:03 [Zakim]
- +1.925.694.aadd
15:02:30 [Zakim]
15:02:36 [Detlev]
who is Nethermind, please?
15:02:43 [shadi]
zakim, aadd is Elle
15:02:43 [Zakim]
sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
15:02:44 [Nethermind]
sorry, this is Elle Waters
15:02:47 [Zakim]
15:02:50 [Detlev]
15:02:54 [shadi]
zakim, aacc is Elle
15:02:59 [Zakim]
+Elle; got it
15:03:02 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see houtepen (muted), shadi, kathy (muted), Sarah, ssirois (muted), Detlev (muted), agarrison, Eric, Elle, ??P2, Mike
15:03:09 [vivienne]
zakiml, ??P2 is me
15:03:20 [vivienne]
zakim, ??p2 is me
15:03:20 [Zakim]
+vivienne; got it
15:03:28 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:03:28 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:04:59 [SarahSwierenga]
sarah: I'll be scribing today...patience please
15:05:11 [Zakim]
15:05:36 [Zakim]
15:05:45 [AmyChen]
zakim, mute me
15:05:45 [Zakim]
AmyChen should now be muted
15:05:46 [shadi]
regrets: Liz, Emmanuelle, Kerstin, Denis, Kostas
15:05:54 [LeonieW]
zakim, ipcaller is LeonieW
15:05:54 [Zakim]
+LeonieW; got it
15:06:36 [SarahSwierenga]
detlev: describing the changes in the draft. Added possible action items to each item.
15:07:23 [Detlev]
Its eric velleman describing these changes...
15:07:25 [shadi]
15:07:53 [SarahSwierenga]
sarah: sorry, comments by Eric
15:09:53 [SarahSwierenga]
detlev: comments from wcag worked into document
15:09:54 [ssirois]
15:11:07 [SarahSwierenga]
detlev: proposed changes by Michael Cooper - scope of document. Also changed appendicies to make doc more in line with W3C
15:11:26 [vivienne]
yes, I read through it - looking good
15:11:30 [Kathy]
yes, I read it
15:11:34 [Detlev]
15:11:39 [houtepen]
15:11:46 [ericvelleman]
15:13:22 [Detlev]
15:13:25 [Detlev]
15:13:35 [Detlev]
zakim unmute me
15:13:45 [shadi]
zakim, unmute det
15:13:45 [Zakim]
Detlev should no longer be muted
15:13:47 [Detlev]
zakim, unmute me
15:13:47 [Zakim]
Detlev was not muted, Detlev
15:14:00 [ericvelleman]
15:14:24 [SarahSwierenga]
detlev; question about 3rd party sites and conformance claims
15:14:54 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: good solution by allister
15:15:35 [SarahSwierenga]
allister: summarized concepts - as an example; eric will add to doc
15:15:57 [Detlev]
15:16:38 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: changed numbers in section 3, questioning where the definitions should go
15:17:08 [Mike_Elledge]
15:17:19 [agarrison]
15:17:23 [ericvelleman]
15:17:54 [shadi]
ack mike
15:18:02 [Kathy]
15:18:18 [SarahSwierenga]
mike: key functionalities phrase might be changed to important functionaities. concerned that it might be interpreted as keyboard keys
15:18:38 [SarahSwierenga]
allister: maybe we should revise doc before going through this
15:18:44 [shadi]
ack aga
15:18:46 [ericvelleman]
15:18:48 [agarrison]
15:18:54 [shadi]
ack det
15:19:47 [SarahSwierenga]
detlev: large online retailer discussion - difficult to evaluate 100s of widgets with wcag. too many to evaluate for conformance claims.
15:19:57 [AmyChen]
15:20:13 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: asks for an example page, but project is not public
15:20:18 [Nethermind]
I think this is valuable, because a lot of design is moving towards a modular consumption method (social media, 3rd party content, aggregated data, e-Commerce, etc)
15:20:42 [houtepen]
15:20:59 [SarahSwierenga]
detlev: consider shopping functions in a large retailing website. is it possible to have an eval procedure for one form/widget
15:21:09 [agarrison]
From WCAG 2.0 - Conformance (and conformance level) is for full Web page(s) only
15:21:23 [Mike_Elledge]
15:21:38 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: will place in document as an editor note
15:21:43 [agarrison]
15:21:44 [Kathy]
zakim, unmute me
15:21:44 [Zakim]
kathy should no longer be muted
15:22:00 [shadi]
ack kathy
15:22:11 [Detlev]
zakim, mute me
15:22:11 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:23:01 [SarahSwierenga]
kathy: often finds with large retailer and large acadmeic institution, defining use cases and user stories is often done by QA. User stories often based on what developer groups are working on.
15:24:12 [SarahSwierenga]
kathy: developer groups responsible for different parts of the page, so getting feedback back to the correct team is important to consider in the eval process
15:24:49 [LeonieW]
15:24:51 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:24:51 [Zakim]
kathy should now be muted
15:24:53 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: will also add this as an editor note - supporting developer teams in their work based on use cases and user stories
15:24:55 [AmyChen]
ack me
15:25:11 [ericvelleman]
15:25:34 [Mike_Elledge]
agree; scripts can be a useful method for defining what to review
15:26:41 [Detlev]
15:26:48 [SarahSwierenga]
AmyChen: likes user stories and use cases approach. we define business processes (and then find out which development team owns specific parts), but then evaluation should be on the whole process, e.g. the whole shopping process.
15:27:44 [SarahSwierenga]
amychen: probably don't need to make too big of a deal about supporting evaluations of parts of processes.
15:27:44 [Mike_Elledge]
15:27:55 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: agrees with amychen
15:28:18 [SarahSwierenga]
amychen: could do conformance by team, but the end report needs to be about whole process
15:28:22 [Tim]
Tim has joined #eval
15:28:48 [houtepen]
ack me
15:28:52 [ericvelleman]
15:28:53 [AmyChen]
zakim, mute me
15:28:53 [Zakim]
AmyChen should now be muted
15:28:54 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: we strive to document the end result of the eval, not who did what
15:29:37 [Zakim]
15:29:40 [houtepen]
zakim, mute me
15:29:40 [Zakim]
houtepen should now be muted
15:29:40 [SarahSwierenga]
martyn: could fall into 3.8
15:30:48 [SarahSwierenga]
tim: wants to see more harmonization with what's been written in conformance section
15:30:51 [shadi]
ack ag
15:31:26 [shadi]
15:31:28 [agarrison]
15:31:33 [Detlev]
I was just raising the issue because it is a frequent use case
15:31:41 [shadi]
ack LeonieW
15:32:32 [Kathy]
15:32:42 [SarahSwierenga]
leonie: good point about harmonizing with conformance from wcag. need to consider how parts of organization will deal with conformance before the whole product is put together.
15:33:26 [Nethermind]
15:33:31 [agarrison]
15:33:32 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: looking at procedure to express the scope, agrees with allistair
15:33:42 [ericvelleman]
15:34:03 [LeonieW]
zakim, ack me
15:34:04 [Zakim]
I see Mike_Elledge, Kathy, Nethermind, agarrison on the speaker queue
15:34:08 [shadi]
ack mike
15:34:28 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:34:28 [Zakim]
kathy was already muted, Kathy
15:34:35 [SarahSwierenga]
mike: mention in doc that when starting on a project, the dev groups could decide who's doing what to make the intermediate evals easier.
15:34:37 [Kathy]
zakim, unmute me
15:34:37 [Zakim]
kathy should no longer be muted
15:34:43 [shadi]
ack kathy
15:35:33 [SarahSwierenga]
kathy: developer groups are internal, but user stories are task-based, which are useful for establishing conformance claim evals
15:36:58 [Nethermind]
+1 agreed, many user stories are more discrete than a complete process
15:37:08 [SarahSwierenga]
kathy: could still be under 3.4, could also fall under 3.8 because each user story/task could be evaluated separately. Could have multiple user stories for the same shopping process, various user views.
15:37:22 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: maybe kathy could figure out where to add this idea
15:37:27 [AmyChen]
15:37:37 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:37:37 [Zakim]
kathy should now be muted
15:37:40 [shadi]
ack neth
15:38:34 [SarahSwierenga]
elle: asking about excluding specific pages from the scope, e.g., secure pages
15:38:57 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: 3.6
15:39:26 [SarahSwierenga]
elle: this might be misunderstood as only requiring non-secure pages for conformance reviews
15:40:26 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: logins for intranet - this could be separate from the scope of the eval. these separations need to be clarified in this doc
15:40:50 [SarahSwierenga]
elle: we want to make sure secure pages are clearly in scope
15:41:03 [Nethermind]
15:41:41 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has joined #eval
15:42:24 [ericvelleman]
15:42:52 [Detlev]
15:43:38 [SarahSwierenga]
allistair: scope - say someone has done all of the work to set up for the conformance evaluation, but then finds out that more parts need to be included. (referring to an email) Website owners would want to know what is minimally inside the evaluation scope.
15:44:41 [ericvelleman]
15:45:02 [shadi]
ack ag
15:46:14 [AmyChen]
15:46:31 [SarahSwierenga]
allistair: why must they then go have a whole website evaluated? Proposes that we use the website owners conformance claim as the claim.
15:46:41 [LeonieW]
q+ What if there is no conformance claim?
15:46:53 [LeonieW]
15:46:58 [Detlev]
I'd lbe happy to adress Alistair's point directly
15:47:14 [ericvelleman]
15:47:15 [AmyChen]
me too
15:47:27 [AmyChen]
ack me
15:47:34 [Mike_Elledge]
15:48:27 [SarahSwierenga]
amychen: allistair's point - top of document should indicate what parts are claimed for conformance, if it's not the whole site.
15:50:13 [SarahSwierenga]
amychen: kathy's question - how to fit user stories and tasks into complete process. Example would be software for expense report, but user profile might be employee vs manager, but the product we sell is just expense reports. wants to propose that the complete process/product named in the conformance claim is written at the top, and then we could indicate the user profiles used.
15:50:50 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: we are looking at 2 sections at the same time, but where can we express the scope of the evaluation?
15:51:25 [ericvelleman]
15:51:31 [agarrison]
For clarity - my question was "should the methodology evaluate a website owners own conformance claim (so the conformance claim becomes the scope) or should we say this is what we want people to evaluate and this is the conformance claim they can then make (disregarding their own claim)"
15:51:35 [shadi]
ack det
15:51:40 [AmyChen]
zakim, mute me
15:51:40 [Zakim]
AmyChen should now be muted
15:51:40 [SarahSwierenga]
amychen: maybe separate scope from complete process. doc should then indicate whether it includes the complete process or not.
15:52:43 [Detlev]
zakim, mute me
15:52:44 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:52:50 [shadi]
ack leonie
15:52:51 [SarahSwierenga]
detlev: we as evaluators should make sure that we know whether the scope of the conformance refers to a few bits or the whole site. need to make sure that the important processes are included in the claim.
15:53:47 [SarahSwierenga]
leonie: maybe we should be more clear in section 2 who is responsible for the evaluation of conformance for the overall process.
15:54:28 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: this methodology is meant for the whole website, not just parts or specific steps
15:54:52 [shadi]
ack mike
15:56:12 [SarahSwierenga]
mike: amychen had a good idea, but if we are talking about an eval done on a finished site, we need to say that very clearly. Seems like a lot of this would be important for reviewing specific parts of a site. Thirdly, we don't want to exclude people who want to evaluate parts of sites, rather than the whole site.
15:56:25 [LeonieW]
15:56:42 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: methodology would have to do very different things if it were for a full site vs unfinished parts of a site.
15:57:07 [SarahSwierenga]
mike: would it be possible to have a doc for partial reviews?
15:57:19 [Detlev]
the same nethodology should suppoort both partial reviews (nor conformance-oriented) and final reviews
15:57:20 [ericvelleman]
15:57:28 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: will make a note of it, but it would be a completely different methodology.
15:57:50 [agarrison]
15:58:12 [Zakim]
15:58:20 [SarahSwierenga]
eric: will open a discussion on a few of the items, e.g., 3.4 and other parts of section 3. will also look at the proposal that allistair made.
15:58:33 [agarrison]
15:59:18 [Tim]
need to also address time dependencies in evaluations at some point..
15:59:24 [SarahSwierenga]
shadi: how development process/organization impacts the evaluation process. we are concerned with how it all comes together.
16:00:22 [ssirois]
thank you all for this meeting!
16:00:22 [Detlev]
16:00:23 [Kathy]
Thanks, bye
16:00:26 [houtepen]
16:00:26 [Zakim]
16:00:27 [Zakim]
16:00:28 [Zakim]
16:00:29 [Zakim]
16:00:30 [Mike_Elledge]
16:00:30 [Zakim]
16:00:31 [SarahSwierenga]
shadi: face-to-face meetings conferences, e.g. CSUN, to see if we had enough people to have a face-to-face meeting.
16:00:31 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has left #eval
16:00:31 [AmyChen]
Thanks, everyone! bye!
16:00:32 [Zakim]
16:00:36 [Zakim]
16:00:37 [Zakim]
16:00:38 [LeonieW]
LeonieW has left #eval
16:00:40 [houtepen]
houtepen has left #eval
16:00:41 [Zakim]
16:00:55 [Zakim]
16:00:57 [Zakim]
16:01:17 [SarahSwierenga]
sarah: end of scribing.
16:01:21 [vivienne]
16:01:25 [vivienne]
vivienne has left #eval
16:01:41 [Zakim]
16:02:18 [Zakim]
16:02:20 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
16:02:22 [Zakim]
Attendees were houtepen, +1.978.443.aaaa, shadi, kathy, Sarah, ssirois, Detlev, agarrison, +31.30.239.aabb, +1.502.632.aacc, Eric, +1.925.694.aadd, Mike, Elle, vivienne, AmyChen,
16:02:29 [Zakim]
... LeonieW, Tim_Boland
17:39:54 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
17:39:54 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:39:54 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:39:55 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:39:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:39:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:39:56 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items