See also: IRC log
<ericvelleman> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130117>
Eric: Yellow places are review notes
... We can now review this and I will send out next version for review
before-hand
... We can work through, I will make changes for next meeting
Shadi: Not sure if policy makers actually do
evaluation - they benefit from evaluations - they commission
... 1.2 section -I think we agreed purpose not target audience so we describe
usage
... Perhaps change sentence to be more functional ??
Katie: In large orgs - sometimes policy maker is also the evaluator.
Eric: Perhapd we should take these people out as they are already in 1.2.
<Sarah_Swierenga> I like the idea of adding this context
Eric: Do we accept Shadi's suggestion
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<MoeKraft> +1
<Liz> +1
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
Eric: I will try to do this in next iteration
<shadi> [[There are many situations in which conformance evaluation of existing websites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 is necessary. This includes for ...]]
Eric: Next is scope of this document
Eric: Tried to find solution for a load of comments - see changes in dif doc
<MartijnHoutepen> compared to an earlier version
Eric: Can we check later and review before next meeting (homework!)
Eric: Changed and should be closed now.
Shadi: Try looking at public draft
Detlev: Noticed that - beginning of section 2 - overall "performance" - sounds as if methodology will not work for poor quality sites
Eric: Send me an email
<Detlev> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130117#applications
Detlev: Can it be rephrased to make it more general
<Detlev> agree - which can go
<Detlev> …should be included as candidate for sampling.
Martijn: Third sentence - use of "which" might be confusing
<MoeKraft> I agree. Which adds some confusion
Shadi: Sampling functionality - not feasable to check every function - but complete processes needs care - concerned that evaluators get to decide - each will do it differently - not a trivial thing
Detlev: Do information boxes that evolve (appear) form part of the process.
Shadi: Strictly WCAG says EVERYTHING on teh page
needs to be valid
... Maybe there are types of functionality, maybe we can work a way to explain
differences
Katie: I evealuate each occurrance - you can't ignore repeated elements
Shadi: Sometimes there is something that comes up often - but is not fundamental to the application. Think a bit more about this
Eric: We can discuss this on a mailing list - Shadi wil start
<Detlev> Each page state or generated page (individual representation of content and functionality) in which such a web application can be considered to be a web page for the purpose of this document should be included.
<Kathy> what about changing it to "Each page state or generated page (individual representation of content and functionality) in a web application should be considered to be a web page for the purpose of this document."
<Detlev> fine
Eric: If we don't want to include everything then we should discuss how we define things
<Detlev> thjat#s nit what I meant!
<shadi> +1
<shadi> "should be considered" -> "is considered"
<MoeKraft> I like it. +1
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
<Detlev> It's going obver the top this way - but let's discuss another time
Eric: I will come up with a new editor draft over weekend - cane everyone check it before next telco
<Sarah_Swierenga> I'm looking forward to closing the disposition of comments!
Sarah: Any idea when we will close dispostion of comments?
Eric: Soon! - before end of January - hopefully
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws#timeline
Shadi: We are behind schedule, but hopefully we can make up for that. so that we can set up practical exercises running method alongside existing methods
MoeKraft: will it be open mailing list ?
Eric: Will be up by Monday morning