WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

26 Jul 2012

See also: IRC log


Katie, Vivienne, Martijn, Eric, Peter, Shadi, Moe, Tim
Alistair, Aurelien, Sarah, Liz, Richard,


<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments.html

Disposition of Comments

Eric: Looking at the disposition of comments
... see column "Nature" for what Eric did with it
... Qx where "x" is the questionaire it was discussed in
... URL at end of each resolution column block

Peter: could the URLs in Resolution column be live?

<shadi> ACTION: eric to add URLs to the disposition of comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/26-eval-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Add URLs to the disposition of comments [on Eric Velleman - due 2012-08-02].

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/actions/4

Eric: we should use the tracker to track open issues, other things we need to track.

Peter: Eric you are suggesting that all unresolved comments or "to write" tasks become Actions?

Eric: yes, that's what I mean

Shadi: suggests a strong separatation between actions & issues
... actions are for specific things; issues are broader (e.g. "consider aggregation on individual website parts")
... actions have deadlines (which can be adjusted - by default they are 1 week out from being created)

<vivienne> fine with me

Eric: OK w/all that we do this to close down comments?

<MartijnHoutepen> +1


<shadi> +10

<Tim> +1

<MoeKraft> +1

<vivienne> +1

<vivienne> +!

<vivienne> +1

Next Steps

Eric: plans to put all comments into next editor draft, and make changes to dispositions of comments; add issues/actions to tracker
... all should be on-line tomorrow, and have complete week 'til next call to discuss the next editor draft.
... question before us would be: are we ready for a next editor draft?


<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq4/

Eric: lots of folks answering - good work! Many "accept proposed"!
... for items with overwhelming "accept" (and perhaps a few "with comments") went ahead and closed the comment, putting the "with comments" into "resolution" column to be dealt with in next draft

Peter: worries about that approach, too easy to loose the thread of the suggestion/concern by doing this.

Shadi: similar concern - W3C is generally a consensus org
... Looking specifically at DoC_ID_5 (at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq4/results#x2631) the points raised by two folks (Shadi & Detlev) need to at a minimum recognize as a Resolution what is being done about those issues; and give folks time to agree/disagree. Or survey it an additional time.
... the survey isn't the decision-making body, just a way to gather input. Only after no further decisions/discussions can you assume consensus on the resolution of comment.
... see on the other hand DoC_ID_15 where all had "accept" but there were some comments. This is an editor discretion situation...

Eric: OK; so we should discuss DoC_ID_5

Shadi: looking at DoC_ID_5, might propose a specific resolution in the meeting (or e-mail) reacting to it.
... DoC_ID_11 has objections, so that clearly needs discussion in the meeting

Peter: thinks that the idea of an editors draft by next week is a bit optimistic given the number of outstanding questions in Q4

Katie: agrees - folks who suggest changes in the questionaire typically have something to say. May be dealt with quickly, but should be dealt with.

Eric: a bit too enthusiastic closing issues...

Shadi: being more optimistic: having an editor draft folks can look at may be a little tight, but the number of open issues may seem more overhwelming than they actually are.

Peter: perhaps we might discuss the questionaire items, vs. discussing the broader issues behind discussing them... :-)

Eric: proceeding with DoC_ID_5...

Shadi: suggests that the contents of Doc_ID_5 might be most efficiently handled via e-mail ahead of a meeting (e.g.a proposed resolution that might be quickly supported by voice in the meeting)

Vivienne: looking at DoC_ID_11, and that might be one that needs some discussion.

Peter: suggests quoting the precise substring from the comment in the questionaire so that folks can more easily understand it.

Shadi: we may reall need pre-work (from Shadi & Eric) for comments like this to clearly parse unclear comments, to enable the group to better digest them

Vivienne: might it be a worthwhile exercize to take the draft, and put the questions just in front of the sections they pertain to.
... what do you think?

Shadi: in some situations that might be useful. E.g. if there is an open question we want to keep for public review or for the group to keep thinking about longer term.
... but thinks it is quite high overhead to clearly insert such questions & then remove them later. Having links from survey into the document is perhaps often sufficient.

Eric: sometimes did propose in questionnaire resolution of adding an editor note in response to public feedback.
... seems we were almost agreeing on ID_11, so in last 4 minutes... perhaps we can close it?

Shadi: perhaps all needed for 11 identify the other places where this applies; you already have content in step 5, so you may be more easily able to find which sections interrelate...
... a small tweak through the document by the editor may be able to surface them and resolve the comments.

Eric: will try to put the easy things to do in a questionnaire, and separate discussions for others

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: eric to add URLs to the disposition of comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/07/26-eval-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/08/08 07:14:43 $