WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

20 Sep 2012

See also: IRC log


Martijn, Kathy, Katie, Vivienne, Mike, Eric, Sarah, Alistair, Peter, Tim
Shadi, Detlev, Kerstin, Moe


<MartijnHoutepen> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120915

<MartijnHoutepen> diff version https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120910&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120915

<vivienne> looks all good to me

<Mike_Elledge> +1

EV: Do we agree on Editors Draft?
... I did nit recieve any changes. I will be turning to it

EV: Last time we turned into a working draft
... It is not too different. Shadi will edit. 20th October ends the public review
... We will have time to prepare for Lyon TPAC

Vivianne: What is the review process for MUSTs?

Vivienne: What is the method?

EV: W3C puts in a Public Draft mode, and we can send to our friends, and it will be announced on a mailing list

Vivienne: Distro list is a way to get it to a wider audience for the WAI R&D

EV: Let us ask Shadi to do that


PK: I dont recall being on that list

Vivienne: Can we check with Shadi

<scribe> ACTION: Eric: Ask Shadi about the R&D Working Group list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-eval-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Ask Shadi about the R&D Working Group list [on Eric Velleman - due 2012-09-27].

<Mike_Elledge> ?

EV: Shadi is traveling now, he might be able to turn in into a public working draft later today
... While we are receiving the comments I suggest we work on the issues, not the comments at first

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

EV: Please send it to as many lists as you know for this review. We have an issue tracked we opened it
... We have an Issue and Action summary

<Mike_Elledge> +1 Issue tracker is great!

EV: We will discuss the sampling and other items
... I will add them to the issuea in the tracker, I will make an agenda for the next meeting to discuss each week on the call

<vivienne> sounds good Eric

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<kathy> fine

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<agarrison> +1

EV: Then we will have at least a months to cover all of the issues on the list. Is that OK with everyone?

Group agrees

<vivienne> sure

<korn> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<kathy> +1

EV: Today we want to publish a Public Working Draft at some time later today. We will disseminate for review.

Vivienna: Do we have an agenda for the TPAC?

EV: I am not sure, I think that is a good discussion fir this group

Peter Kron: I will not be able to be at TPAC, it would be nice to catch some specific times can call in

EV: Yes, I will discuss with Shadi if we cabn have IRC

<scribe> ACTION: Discuss IRC with Shadi [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-eval-minutes.html#action02]

<korn> +1!!

<korn> That's a great idea!

<MartijnHoutepen> Katie: will we have an opportunity to perform actual evaluation at tpac?

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<vivienne> yes, very much. I'm working on one at the moment

<kathy> good idea

Katie Haritos-Shea: I suggest running through a test drive of our methodology at the TPAC

Griup Agrees

EV: The other important thing is that we try it and see what we cone up with

<vivienne> yes please Mike

Mike: I just put them into a word document, that includes the comments
... I can send around

EV: yes, please do

Peter Korn: I would like to see us do a run through of our methodology. We had great success with run throughs on the TEITAC, it will be very valuable to do this

Peter Korn: We should NOT pick some well known property, but use an anonymous named site. At TEITAC members used some of their own prodcuct to test

Peter Korn: Industry members chose some of there own products. We chose the Solaris OS for example

Peter Korn: It help greatly to surface problems. It will be easier if someone offers their own products - not the New York Times. Best not to give the idea that the W3C tests website

Peter Korn: Therefore it will be best that someone offer their own site

Peter Korn" Or, test the W3C site. It is Important to anonymise

Vivienne: I agree, what if we approach organizations?

The focus is on.....testing our methodology in process (NOT the web sites)

Peter Korn: Just make clear that we are testing our methodolg

Kathy: Be sure that we are including Web appllications
... There are still holes, and someone in our group is working on one, that would be great

EV: Very good

Tim: How do we assess at the end. ?

<korn> We should have a list of questions written down ahead of our review.

Katie: We are trying to determine where we have problems

Tim: We need to define what is our methodologies and what are issue

Peter: Maybe we should have some questions in advance

<korn> Key questions I think include:

<korn> 1. Does the methodology cover the situations arising from this website?

<korn> 2. Are there significant functiunality / parts we aren't reaching (statistical methodology)?

<korn> 3. Are there

EV: Maybe it is a good idea to start a discussion on the list what would our trial look like. Let have this talked about on the list

Peter: Would you be willing to start this?

<vivienne> I think the trial is a great idea

Peter Korn: Yes, I am starting it right now

EV: do all agree? Homework is what will our test/trail look like?
... We will set up an agenda

Any other issues?

Tim: When will the updated draft be published?

EV: Probably tonight when Shadi is finished with his travel
... I have to congradulate us all. Hopefully we will get many comments

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Discuss IRC with Shadi [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-eval-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Eric: Ask Shadi about the R&D Working Group list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-eval-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/09/21 18:30:00 $