See also: IRC log
<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments
Eric: looking at comments received on WCAG-EM
draft
... draft won't be published until comments are addressed
Shadi: yes go through comments linearly
... comments more urgent / interesting for discussion up front
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c48
Eric: Comment 48: setting scope unneccessarily restrictive: discussion
<KathyW> Yes , the time was right in the agenda
Eric: explains rationale of section 2.1
<richard> q
Richard: The whole website evaluationm should
include everything; you can do parts eparately, but not exclude parts
... refers to library example that must not be excluded
<shadi> Detlev: some sites would never meet the requirements without exemption
<shadi> Eric: relates to partial conformance?
<shadi> Detlev: not sure, would need to read
Detlev: reiterartes argument for exceptions
<vivienne> doesn't partial conformance only apply to part of a page that is third-party?
Eric: suggests that partial conformance would address the problem
Shadi: partial conformance relates to reporting phas, not scoping phase
<agarrison> 100% agree with Shadi
+q
Shadi: explains use of parial conformance in reporting phase
<shadi> Detlev: clients want recognition for their work
<shadi> ...want a seal
<shadi> ...hard to say you will never get there
Detlev: expands the argument for exceptions for conformance claims
<Kerstin> agree with shadi
Shadi: makes an argument for conformance yes/no
... thinks the issue belongs into the section on reporting
Samuel: listing each part that may be excempt is harder to understand then a positive statement, thinks current version is fine
Vivienne: scope should clearly state what is being evaluated, otherwise it may be fragmented; in reporting, one could explain why the entire website is not conformant, same for 3rd party content
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to suggest resolution of adding some notes in the scope section describing the rationale and pointing to the relevant parts in the reporting section
Vivienne: the methodogy should focus on the whole site because otherwise people would take their pick at will to exclude bits
Shadi: issue closed, comments could moved to reporting section, rationale in scope could be added to clarify that
<Sarah_Swierenga> + sarah
<Elle> I support that approach
<richard> +1
<KathyW> That is good
<vivienne> +1
RESOLUTION: issue 48: issue closed, comments could moved to reporting section, rationale in scope could be added to clarify that
<vivienne> I think we need to be as clear as possible
<Elle> If we keep it concise, I think a reference to the Reporting section is helpful
Alistair: Maybe additional note unnecessary tzo keep text concise
<Kerstin> probably not forever
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c84
Next point isuue 84 (Amy Chen)
Shadi: Since Amy is not formal participant
(anymore) issue need not be adressed, but should be, nevertheless
... parphrases Amy's point (refer to her comments)
<shadi> [[Exception: The methodology can be applied to clearly separable areas of a single website, such as to the public and restricted area of a website or the front-end and back-end of a web-based tool, provided that this scope matches the evaluation goals and the context of website use; read more in section 3 Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope of the evaluation procedure.]]
<Elle> +1
<richard> +1
<vivienne> +1
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<KathyW> +1
<ssirois> +1
+1
<agarrison> +1
<Tim> +1
<ssirois> ack
<Liz_> +1 for Liz
<ericvelleman> those were +1's for keeping exception in section 2.1
RESOLUTION: issue 84: Keep: The methodology can be applied to clearly separable areas of a single website, such as to the public and restricted area of a website or the front-end and back-end of a web-based tool, provided that this scope matches the evaluation goals and the context of website use; read more in section 3 Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope of the evaluation procedure.
<Kerstin> +1
<Elle> agreed, +1 with editorial comments
Samuel: quailfies his +1 the backend front-end issue is addressed
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c20
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c52
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#i2
Discussion of issues 63 (Loretta), 20 (Kerstin), and 52 (Detlev)
Shadi: suggests that issues can be resolved editorially
Kerstin: not sure, depends on what those edits will be
Eric: General idea: techniques are not the checkpoints?
Kerstin: yes, if techniques are marked as
optional, there is still the danger that they will used (seen as mandatory), so
even optional use is dangerous
... proposes top move mention of techniques from this section to reporting
section
Shadi: could be useful if site owner marks techniques that have been used in implementation
Kerstin: but then the test refers to techniques
Shadi sees no problem with this
<agarrison> I'm 100% for the current text - possibly with a little editorial work
Eric: suggests rephrasing, publishing to list
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#i3
<Kerstin> I agree with having a look at the edit
RESOLUTION issue 63, 20, 52: rephrasing, publishing to list
Shadi: issue id 54, 55
<ssirois> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#54
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#c55
Detlev paraphrases sampling issue "just to of each"
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306#step2c
Shadi: Explains the overlap of functions and
templates
... The more diverse the templates, the wider the sample will get
RESOLUTION: issue 54, 55: try to clarify editorially misunderstandings and publish to list
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#i4
Shadi: comments on "elemental" web pages, likes Don's suggestion of "common" web pages
<Elle> +1 for common
<agarrison> +1 for common
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 for "common"
+1
<KathyW> +1
<richard> +1 for common
<vivienne> +1
<Kerstin> +1 with description what "common" exactly means
<ssirois> +1 for elemental, but you shall ignore me if i'm alone! ;) just think elemental sounds more powerfull to my French ears
<vivienne> 26, 43, 47, 81, 25, 27
RESOLUTION: issue 26: change elemental web pages to common web pages
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments#i5
<Elle> +1
Shadi: Issue of document incompleteness: several people suggested that one should delay publication
<agarrison> +1 for earliest possible publication
Shadi: there is a risk of misunderstandings if published in incomplete state, but the advantage is getting more public input outside perspectives
<Elle> +1 for earliest possible publication as well
Detlev: withdraws objection to publication
<ssirois> ack
Samuel: Thought this discussion would close
section 1, 2, 3 and work two more weeks on 4 and 5 before publication
... agrees to publish soon
+q
<Elle> so, is the question on whether to wait for 4 and 5 before publication?
<Elle> +1 for vivienne's comments
<shadi> [[there were formal comments to update the abstract and status of the document sections, to clarify the current status]]
Vivienne: is in favour of publishing as soon as possible, this is work in prgress, we are looking for more input and will get valuable input. Benefits outweight problems
Shadi: some comments on updating the abstract to make clear where the methodology fits in the big picture
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 for Vivienne's suggestion that we publish soon
Richard: Thins the discussion points to a (slight) delay, to put in more content
<agarrison> Lets move for a resolution on publishing
<Elle> can we vote on publication?
Richards: Thinks additional content might prevent misunderstandings of still ill defined issues
Detlev: is ready to agree to puiblication
Eric: Thinks it is valuable to get more input for the draft
<agarrison> +1 publish
<ssirois> +1 publish
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<Elle> +1 (with qualifying introductory copy that explains its state, especially 4 and 5)
<vivienne> +1
<KathyW> +1
<richard> -1 do not publish yet
<ericvelleman> +1 publish
No resolution to publish right now
<Kerstin> first want to see the edits before I give my +1
<Elle> have to go to another meeting, apologies! <exiting call>
RESOLUTION: group approves publishing priovided that comments are addressed.
<Elle> +1 for ssirois having the best vocabulary of the call :)
Eric: not all yellow comments were discussed
Shadi: those issues that were not discussed
should be resolved on the mailing list
... please give input today + tomorrow on outstanding issues, fresh draft
early next week.
Eric: Shadi and Eric will publish frsh version.
... thanks to all, closes call.