IRC log of eval on 2013-12-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:58:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:58:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:58:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eval
14:58:12 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
14:58:12 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:13 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:58:13 [trackbot]
Date: 05 December 2013
14:59:27 [Richard]
Richard has joined #eval
14:59:55 [shadi]
zakim, this is eval
14:59:55 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; that matches WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM
15:00:02 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kathy_Wahlbin
15:00:29 [Liz]
Liz has joined #eval
15:00:32 [Zakim]
15:00:52 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
15:00:59 [Zakim]
15:01:00 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
15:01:06 [Zakim]
15:01:07 [Zakim]
15:01:25 [Zakim]
15:01:42 [Zakim]
15:01:43 [Zakim]
15:01:44 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #eval
15:02:00 [agarrison]
agarrison has joined #eval
15:02:18 [agarrison]
Should be able to join telecon shortly
15:02:23 [Richard]
Zakim, ipcaller is richard
15:02:24 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has joined #eval
15:02:25 [Zakim]
+richard; got it
15:02:54 [Zakim]
15:03:01 [MaryJo]
MaryJo has joined #eval
15:03:17 [Zakim]
15:03:19 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kathy_Wahlbin, Shadi, Liz, Sarah_Swierenga, Mike_Elledge, richard, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Detlev
15:03:47 [Zakim]
15:04:12 [MartijnHoutepen]
MartijnHoutepen has joined #eval
15:04:21 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:04:21 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:04:26 [shadi]
scribe: Sarah_Swierenga
15:04:29 [Zakim]
15:04:43 [agarrison]
Zakim, ipcaller is alistair
15:04:43 [Zakim]
+alistair; got it
15:04:59 [Zakim]
15:05:08 [Sarah_Swierenga]
editor draft:
15:05:08 [shadi]
15:05:12 [MartijnHoutepen]
Zakim, please mute me
15:05:12 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:05:31 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Disposition of Comments:
15:05:36 [MoeKraft]
MoeKraft has joined #eval
15:05:38 [shadi]
15:05:59 [Zakim]
15:06:57 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: full editor draft - survey for public comments
15:08:02 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: thanks to Vivian, Moe, and Kathy for their valuable copy edit comments.
15:08:42 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: most new work in the editor draft is in the steps themselves, mostly Step 4 audit the selected sample
15:08:45 [shadi]
15:09:45 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: Step 3 - factors that influence sample size has been cleaned up and reorganized; content pretty much unchanged
15:10:43 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: WCAG working group comments - We need the approvals from the WCAG WG and ERT WG
15:11:40 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: needs comments from our group for fixes before publication - suggestions to reduce confusion, misrepresentation
15:12:36 [shadi]
15:12:37 [shadi]
priority: [mild/medium/strong suggestion]
15:12:37 [shadi]
location: (such as: "under Introduction heading, third paragraph")
15:12:37 [shadi]
current wording:
15:12:37 [shadi]
suggested revision:
15:12:39 [shadi]
15:12:41 [shadi]
15:12:48 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: also add comments for fixing after publication, but make sure to clearly indicate those comments; use the 'priority' format
15:13:01 [ericvelleman]
15:14:31 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: timeline - desire to publish before end of year - reading by the fireplace, lol
15:15:46 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: timeline - feedback by Dec 13th; resolve issues by Dec 17 for WCAG, and Dec 18 for ERT, and then publish Dec 20 hopefully
15:17:12 [Sarah_Swierenga]
eric: agenda items addressed in Shadi's comments
15:17:28 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi and eric: initial reactions?
15:17:47 [shadi]
15:18:20 [Detlev]
I would still like to have a little discussion of Step 5.d: Provide a Performance Score (Optional)...
15:18:32 [Sarah_Swierenga]
mike: mainly editorial comments, not substantial issues
15:18:47 [Kathy]
15:18:54 [Detlev]
15:19:07 [Kathy]
ack me
15:19:45 [Sarah_Swierenga]
kathy: wondering where the info is on incorporating assistive technology into the testing
15:20:20 [Sarah_Swierenga]
kathy: using AT and the approach for organizations
15:20:20 [shadi]
15:20:39 [shadi]
Step 1.c: Define an Accessibility Support Baseline
15:21:47 [Sarah_Swierenga]
kathy: lots of discussion within Federal, state, and businesses about integrating AT into the testing protocol
15:22:20 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: is this topic appropriate for this document? include your thoughts in the survey
15:22:24 [agarrison]
15:22:31 [Detlev]
15:22:36 [Detlev]
15:23:56 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Allistar: We need to indicate how to create a baseline, e.g., accessibility support
15:25:15 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Alistair: maybe this needs to be discussed with the WCAG 2 team
15:26:12 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Alistair: there will be a lot of questions about this, but can hold until after the public comments
15:26:36 [shadi]
+1 to Eric's suggestion
15:26:39 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Shadi: could add a comment in the public editor draft
15:27:01 [shadi]
15:28:36 [ericvelleman]
15:29:07 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: if someone declares that JavaScript is needed on the site, is that an accessibility issue? How much do these issues relate to our mission?
15:30:08 [shadi]
q- ag
15:30:52 [Sarah_Swierenga]
kathy: offers to send her webinar link to the list
15:30:58 [Kathy]
15:31:20 [Detlev]
ack me
15:31:38 [shadi]
15:32:27 [shadi]
15:32:50 [Sarah_Swierenga]
detlev: Section 5d - performance score - wants to discuss this section - per instance score may be difficult to implement, and may not reflect the priority of that failure
15:33:07 [Detlev]
15:33:25 [Detlev]
15:34:00 [Sarah_Swierenga]
detlev: different ways of creating scores, but as currently written it appears to be the only recommended approach
15:35:38 [Mike_Elledge]
15:36:36 [shadi]
15:36:38 [Detlev]
Per site and per page (pass/fail) seem fine to me!
15:36:44 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: didn't we try to put in a combined score, rather than multiple ones?
15:37:18 [Richard]
Per site is the only one that works for me
15:37:47 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Mike: remembers discussing this, but the group wasn't sure which one to use; no closure from the group
15:38:15 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Mike: could we post the options in the resources section?
15:38:52 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: remembers wanting to keep this section more general, but group didn't come to a conclusion
15:39:21 [Detlev]
15:39:33 [shadi]
q- mike
15:39:58 [Sarah_Swierenga]
eric: could do performance scores for complete website, web page, web page state, or per instance - depends on the goal of the evaluation
15:40:10 [Detlev]
ack me
15:40:29 [Sarah_Swierenga]
detlev: criticality of the failure is very important
15:41:18 [Sarah_Swierenga]
detlev: wants a score that goes beyond pass/fail, but speaks to criticality
15:41:50 [shadi]
15:43:17 [Richard]
15:43:20 [Mike_Elledge]
15:43:30 [shadi]
q- later
15:43:34 [Sarah_Swierenga]
detlev: wants to identify other approaches - later would be ok (maybe a note in the public editor draft)
15:44:10 [Sarah_Swierenga]
detlev: we don't want to 'outlaw' other approaches
15:44:23 [shadi]
q- rich
15:45:56 [Sarah_Swierenga]
richard: Priority A, AA, AAA are already a rough priority standard, but trying to specify critical issues until you get into the testing process
15:46:38 [Sarah_Swierenga]
detlev: methodology shouldn't define criticality, but the test score should reflect a way of giving a priority
15:47:10 [Detlev]
+1 to Richard
15:47:14 [Sarah_Swierenga]
richard: recommends not going into too much detail into this section
15:47:28 [shadi]
ack mike
15:48:15 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Mike: suggests putting a placeholder indicating that we want comments on
15:48:34 [Sarah_Swierenga]
eric: everything is a draft, but we can add an editor note
15:49:59 [Sarah_Swierenga]
eric: likes the idea of keeping this section more flexible as suggested today.
15:50:10 [Detlev]
15:50:58 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:50:58 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:52:25 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: per instance scores become more subjective and involve weighting and other considerations; recommends dropping the per instance score and keeping the per website and per page pass/fail
15:52:31 [Detlev]
lets have a quick survey in this telco of this suggestion, Shadi!
15:53:21 [Detlev]
15:53:32 [Mike_Elledge]
15:53:32 [Liz]
15:53:33 [Kathy]
15:53:34 [agarrison]
15:53:35 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:53:36 [ericvelleman]
15:53:38 [MoeKraft]
15:53:38 [Sarah_Swierenga]
15:53:46 [MaryJo]
15:54:15 [Sarah_Swierenga]
eric: we
15:54:36 [Sarah_Swierenga]
eric: we'll make this change in the doc before publishing the public editor draft
15:57:22 [shadi]
15:57:26 [shadi]
ack me
15:57:42 [shadi]
15:58:29 [Sarah_Swierenga]
shadi: meeting at the csun conference? this might coincide with the next public draft (the final public draft)
16:00:36 [Detlev]
16:00:38 [Richard]
16:00:40 [Mike_Elledge]
16:00:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
16:00:41 [Zakim]
16:00:42 [Zakim]
16:00:42 [Zakim]
16:00:43 [Zakim]
16:00:44 [Liz]
16:00:44 [Zakim]
16:00:45 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has left #eval
16:00:45 [Zakim]
16:00:45 [Zakim]
16:00:46 [Zakim]
16:00:46 [Zakim]
16:00:48 [Zakim]
16:00:50 [Zakim]
16:01:47 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
16:01:48 [Zakim]
Attendees were Kathy_Wahlbin, Shadi, Liz, Sarah_Swierenga, Mike_Elledge, richard, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Detlev, EricVelleman, alistair, MartijnHoutepen, MoeKraft
16:09:20 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
16:09:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:09:20 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:09:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:09:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:09:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:09:29 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items