Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

Timeline

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012Feb/0011.html

<markel> I'm fine with the timeline

everybody agrees with proposed timeline

Pre-Call

SH: wants to discuss the topics in the wiki, next week
... and make a PRE CFP public, Peter agrees

<Peter> Pre call for mobile topic: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Pre_CFP

<sharper> ACTION: peter to update wiki sub topics for pre call discussion http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Pre_CFP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-rd-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Update wiki sub topics for pre call discussion http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Mobile_Pre_CFP [on Peter Thiessen - due 2012-02-23].

<Peter> Should say (DRAFT!) for pre call :)

Review of W3C Note 1!

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012Feb/0002.html

SH: intends to go through the research note and to decide for each paragraph if it is ok or not so that editors can change
... whose job is to convert odt into html?

SZ: usually editors do it. SZ volunteers to take s input a simple html and make it suitable forthe w3c publication rules.

thank you Shadi!

SH: let's start.

<Peter> +1

<christos> +1

<yeliz> +1

SH: parag. 1 is ok

<sharper> +1

<markel> got it Shadi

<shadi> +1 given the acronyms will be marked up

<Peter> +1

<shawn> request: "• The number of Level A success criteria violations." -> "• The number of Level A and AA success criteria violations."

<sharper> +1

<christos> +1

<shadi> +1

<Peter> +1

<sharper> +1

<shadi> [[In order to measure more abstract qualities,...]]

<christos> +1

I don't understand Shawn comment

ok

<shadi> [[As a result of the computation of accessibility metrics,...]]

<sharper> +1

<Peter> +1

<christos> +1

<markel> yes

yes, refernces

will be linked

<shadi> [[Web accessibility can be viewed and defined in different ways...]]

<sharper> +1

<Peter> +1

<christos> +1

<yeliz> +1

<shadi> [[Other metrics can be defined if one assumes that accessibility...]]

SH: thinks the paragraph is a bit lost

+q

<markel> unmute markel

<markel> I cannot be heard

<Peter> a null pointer exception :)

<Peter> might be helpful for people who only skim the intro and conclusion

GB: doesn't know where else to put those defs

SH: suggsts to put them in the intro.

<Peter> (agrees with simon)

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say keep where it is and reference "section 508"

SZ: does not see the problem
... add a reference to S508

<markel> ok so I had Yeliz's p number

<yeliz> :-s

<yeliz> I think Zakim is very confused today!

<markel> it's me

<markel> thanks shawn

<Peter> :)

yes shadi, I understand it. I daid it wrong!

I said it wrong.

<markel> +1

+1

<shadi> +1

<christos> +1

<yeliz> +1

<markel> lol

<Peter> lol

<shawn> lol

<shadi> [[Most of the existing metrics - see a review in...]]

<christos> +1

<sharper> +1

<Peter> +1

<yeliz> +1

<shadi> +1

<shadi> [[The error-rate of these estimations...]]

<sharper> +1

<Peter> +!

<christos> +1

<Peter> +1 (sorry zakim)

<shadi> +1

<yeliz> +1

<shadi> [[A benchmarking survey on automatic conformance metrics...]]

<sharper> +1

<Peter> +1

<christos> +1

<shadi> +1

Shawn: AIR is not a metric

<shawn> suggest: "an example is [AIR]." -> "an example is the evaluation done with [AIR]." or such

<shadi> [[1.2 The Benefits of Using Metrics]]

shawn suggsts a rewording.

<Peter> +1

<Peter> good point Shadi

SZ: does not like capitalizing in the paragraph. GB agrees with SZ

<markel> :-)

<yeliz> I agree as well

<shawn> lower case Web Engineering & Retrieval

<shadi> [[2. A Framework for Quality of Accessibility Metrics]]

<sharper> +1

<Peter> +1

<christos> +1

<shadi> [[2.1 Validity]]

<shadi> [[This attribute is related to the extent...]]

<Peter> :)

<yeliz> +1

<sharper> +1

<yeliz> :)

<Peter> (I know this is not good!)

that's good, Simon, that there are too few pbms.

<christos> +1

<shadi> [[Validity is by far the most important quality...]]

<sharper> +1

<Peter> +1

<shadi> [[2.2 Reliability]]

<sharper> +1

<shadi> [[This attribute is related to the reproducibility...]]

<Peter> +1

<shadi> [[Unreliable metrics are not good...]]

<christos> +1

<shadi> [[It is worth noting that one of the aims of this research note...]]

<Peter> +1

<sharper> +1

<shadi> [[2.3 Sensitivity]]

SH: comment on sensitivity 2.3

<shawn> editorial: "webpages" -> "web pages"

Shawn: also websites -> web sites?

<shawn> websites one word :-)

<yeliz> +1

<Peter> +1

<shadi> [[2.4 Adequacy]]

<yeliz> +1

<christos> +1

<Peter> +1

<markel> +1

SH: suggests "like" --> such as

<shadi> [[2.5 Complexity]]

<yeliz> +1

SZ: on 2.5.
... should be expanded on other notions of complexity, like number of judges or conflict resolution process.

<markel> I agree with SAZ that complexity could be extended

<sharper> ach g

<yeliz> I think that would be good

MV: agrees with SZ. notes that this notion of complexity (computational) can be defined in a better way; the other one is more fuzzy.

GB: is worried that we could go into too refined definitions of complexity while then being unable to refer to them.

I agree with Shadi about the observatory.

SZ: says that a w3c draft is asking on input and feedback from readers; we (editors) should be ready for it.

<yeliz> I think it's important that it's highlighted

<markel> I like SAZ's suggestion

SZ: warried that if we say there are no good metrics then accessibility is worthless.