See also: IRC log
ev: welcome
... new member: Mary Jo Mueller
MJM: introduces herself
EV: Working on new ED
EV: survey 11 is still open
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/EvalTFsurvey11/
Appendix C http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130903#reports
<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130903#reports
EV: not a lot work done yet on this
... question is: What do we want in the reports, is it optional
DF: appendix c says "should have'', does that mean "must have"?
PK: The sample report should be a sufficient
evaluation statement
... should remain optional
... some of the bullets in the list are insufficiently specified
<Detlev> So it would be "Date of the "accessibility evaluation statement" rather than "Date of the conformance claim"
PK: f.e. terminology
... Example report should also be an accessibility evaluation statement
VC: good suggestion of PK, we need more
explaining on the items of the bullet-list
... problem with validity in time
... uri's of claim is not reasonable, more reasonable to include uri's of
sample
PK: 3rd bullet, conformance claim does not belong here
<Vivienne> maybe "tested WCAG level"
PK: see also "conformance level" etc. all occurrances of "conformance"
EV: copied some info from WCAG, we could include some (with reference)
DF: URL: sufficient to use just URL if it
includes all pages on that site, agree with VC to include list of sample
pages
... remover occurrances of "claim"
... only date to include can be the evaluation date
EV: we will look at the use of conformance and claim, etc
DF: Good idea to list all pages in sample
PK: the list of pages makes sence for traditional
website, for applications it doesn't
... we need to include a way to describe states in webapps
... keep in mind development patterns, could be more data behind statement
than can be included in list
... add release number , version number when known
EV: instead of date? extra option?
PK: varies, which is most applicable or most significant
EV: or combination
KW: list of pages does not always apply,
sometimes specific use cases fit better
... sometimes use cases are very long (more than 50 pages)
MJM: when you use webcrawlers on enterprise sites, the list could be very long. Settings of crawler can also of use
EV: what do we want to do with output from automated testing
MJM: We have to have some generic example of the use of automated tool
EV: so many tools, has to be very generic
<Tim> maybe use several different tools (at least 2) - do we want to specify?
VC: we use automated tools as assistance, but not
rely on them. We agreed to list tools used, but not get into the use of
automated tools too much
... we wanted to steer away from reliance on automated tools
KW: in reporting, there is added value in
including results of automated tools, though we would not want to rely on these
results alone
... we should include this in reporting
EV: in the reporting step 5a we refer to an
optional step 4e where we refer to the use of tools
... we don't have anything on crawlers
... at the moment just tools that support evaluation
... should we make a division optional/non-optional, should we define a
minimum?
<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130903#reports
EV: in step 5a we already ask to report almost everything
KW: we do need to make reporting too much work if
it is not necessary
... do not
DF: some items on the list should be mandatory, others can be optional
<Vivienne> +1
DF: maybe put the items in a survey and discuss this
<Liz> +1
Ev: I could split in two in a new ED
<Tim> +1
+1
EV: will split into mandatory and optional
<Vivienne> Yes, Eric that's fine
PK: the most important mandatory parts are those that make it an evaluation statement
EV: what should be mandatory
PK: level A, AA or AAA
EV: DF mentioned date, pages in sample
TB: name, name of org, some attribution
the result
VC: the scope of what you're using, the guideline, description of the website, description of the sample
PK: scope of evaluation, critical, core features
EV: number of things already in step 5
... we need to include introduction text on evaluation commissionar etc
DF: scope of evaluation includes what is core, etc
EV: will include this in new ED
EV: survey will be discussed next time, things
everyone agrees on will be in next ED
... no telco next week
PK: concerned on time dilation
<Detlev> fine
PK: lot of unanimity on lot of items, maybe you
can put these things in the new ED
... as long as it is transparent
<Liz> +1
<Vivienne> +1
<MaryJo> +1
EV: does everyone agree?
+1
<Tim> +1
<Detlev> you will be missed!
<Mike_Elledge> Yes--good luck to you Peter! I hope you'll be able to continue as an Invited Expert.
<Tim> hope you can continue..
<Vivienne> You would be sorely missed Peter,let's hope you can stay on
PK: will be leaving group, hope to focus on evaluation statement and reporting on the short term
<Mike_Elledge> +1
EV: great work PK
<korn> Thanks Martijn, Vivienne, TIm, Detlev, Mike, all.
EV: no telco next week
Thanks Peter