13:52:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #eval
13:52:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/06/12-eval-irc
13:52:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:52:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #eval
13:52:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3825
13:52:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
13:52:43 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
13:52:44 <trackbot> Date: 12 June 2014
13:54:52 <Vivienne> Vivienne has joined #eval
13:58:19 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
13:58:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:59:01 <richard> richard has joined #eval
13:59:03 <Vivienne> zakim, IPcaller is me
13:59:03 <Zakim> +Vivienne; got it
13:59:35 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #eval
13:59:52 <Zakim> +MartijnHoutepen
13:59:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:00:01 <shadi> zakim, ipcaller is me
14:00:01 <Zakim> +shadi; got it
14:00:42 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
14:00:59 <Vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:01:00 <Zakim> +Detlev
14:01:00 <Zakim> Vivienne should now be muted
14:01:14 <shadi> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2014Jun/0007.html
14:01:15 <Zakim> +Mike_Elledge
14:01:22 <Detlev> Zakim, mute me
14:01:23 <Zakim> Detlev should now be muted
14:01:39 <martijnhoutepen> zakim, mute me
14:01:39 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
14:01:41 <alistair> alistair has joined #eval
14:02:36 <shadi> regrets: Sarah, MaryJo
14:03:09 <shadi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Vivienne (muted), MartijnHoutepen (muted), shadi, Detlev (muted), Mike_Elledge
14:04:27 <alistair> zakim, ipcaller is alistair
14:04:27 <Zakim> sorry, alistair, I do not recognize a party named 'ipcaller'
14:04:29 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:04:48 <alistair> zakim, ipcaller is alistair
14:04:48 <Zakim> +alistair; got it
14:05:14 <shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2014Jun/0010.html
14:05:34 <Detlev> Is it me scribing then?
14:05:42 <Detlev> scribe: Detlev
14:05:54 <Detlev> ack me
14:06:11 <Detlev> Shadi posts link to final editor draft
14:06:15 <shadi> Topic: Update on final Editor Draft
14:06:17 <shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2014Jun/0010.html
14:07:26 <Detlev> Finalising draft: Please go down disposition of comments and ensure everything is cloded one by one
14:07:48 <Detlev> Shadi: we should finalise the draft for the WG to revie
14:07:58 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #eval
14:08:29 <Detlev> Shadi: addressing questions regarding reorganisation of the text
14:08:29 <Zakim> +Kathy_Wahlbin
14:08:43 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
14:08:44 <Zakim> Kathy_Wahlbin should now be muted
14:09:12 <shadi> Topic: Potential reorganization of sections in the Editor Draft
14:09:16 <shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2014Jun/0011.html
14:09:29 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610
14:09:58 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step1d
14:10:01 <Detlev> Shadi: Addressing several suggestions - first reg. step 1e
14:10:17 <shadi> Step 1.d (define evaluation procedures) seems more related to the
14:10:17 <shadi> use of techniques (or other methods) during evaluation (i.e. Step 4)
14:10:17 <shadi> than to Step 1
14:10:44 <Detlev> Bad echo!!!
14:10:55 <Detlev> better now
14:11:35 <Detlev> Shadi: section 1d was flagged in test run: people were not sure what exactly to d
14:12:15 <Detlev> Shadi: suggest keeping the suggestions from step 1d and move to step 4
14:12:47 <Kathy> +1
14:12:54 <Detlev> Shadi: info on techniques role for testing seems a better fit in step 4
14:12:57 <Detlev> +1
14:13:01 <martijnhoutepen> +1
14:13:05 <Mike_Elledge> +1
14:13:07 <Vivienne> +1
14:13:45 <Detlev> Resolution: move section 1d to step 4
14:14:01 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step3d
14:14:17 <Detlev> Shadi: Next on is step 3d (complete processes)
14:15:24 <Detlev> Shadi: (describes content of section 3d)
14:17:48 <Vivienne> sorry Shadi, I can hear little of what you're saying
14:18:11 <Zakim> -shadi
14:18:15 <martijnhoutepen> maybe I can summarize this point?
14:18:23 <martijnhoutepen> ack me
14:19:15 <Kathy> q+
14:19:15 <shadi> please do, yes
14:19:22 <Vivienne> q+
14:19:25 <Kathy> ack me
14:19:28 <Mike_Elledge> q+
14:19:33 <martijnhoutepen> zakim, mute me
14:19:33 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
14:19:48 <Detlev> Shadi: suggestion to move parts of 3d (complete proccesses) move selection of pages that are part of the process to step 4 (explained by Martjin)
14:20:16 <martijnhoutepen> ack me
14:20:17 <Detlev> Kathy: We still need to identify complete processes in step 3
14:20:36 <Vivienne> ack me
14:20:40 <Zakim> + +1.617.492.aaaa
14:20:42 <martijnhoutepen> zakim, mute me
14:20:42 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
14:20:43 <Detlev> q+
14:20:44 <Kathy> zakim, mute me
14:20:44 <Zakim> Kathy_Wahlbin should now be muted
14:20:55 <shadi> zakim, aaaa is me
14:20:55 <Zakim> +shadi; got it
14:21:42 <Detlev> Vivienne: How does moving the choosing of the sample (incl. complete processes) to step 4 ensure that we have actuall ycovered the whole process?
14:21:55 <Vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:21:55 <Zakim> Vivienne should now be muted
14:22:42 <Detlev> Shadi: (explaining) 1. Mark start of process in step 3  / 2. specify the exact sample in step 4
14:23:25 <shadi> ack mike
14:24:04 <Detlev> Mike: Important to retain the idea to include complete processes in sample - step 3 still needed
14:24:29 <shadi> ack det
14:26:38 <Detlev> Detlev: processes with decision points are often too complex to be covered exhaustively anyway - step 4 is picking those pages and states on pages that are present and need to be evaluated, as type
14:27:07 <Detlev> Shadi: Step 3 still valid for making the complete processes included
14:28:05 <Vivienne> I'm fine with that as you identified just now Shadi.  As long as the step stays in 3 that we identify any complete processes
14:28:32 <martijnhoutepen> +1
14:28:37 <Detlev> Shadi: OK to move evaluation of complete processes to step 4 - first two steps in algorithm remain in step 3 - items 3 and 4 in algorithm (looking at branches) go to step 4
14:28:42 <Detlev> 1+
14:28:46 <Kathy> +1
14:28:47 <Mike_Elledge> +1
14:29:27 <Detlev> Resolution: Move items 3 and 4 in algorithm in step 3d to step 4
14:29:52 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step4a
14:29:55 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step4c
14:30:48 <shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step1d
14:30:52 <Detlev> Shadi: Fourh point in Email was mergin 4a and 4c (referring to mailing list discussion a while back)
14:31:34 <martijnhoutepen> +1
14:31:41 <Mike_Elledge> q+
14:32:15 <shadi> ack mike
14:32:58 <Detlev> Mike: Makes sense to merge 4a and 4c - important not to refer to alternative version pages as compliant before they have been checked (and passed WCAG)
14:33:53 <Vivienne> q+
14:34:06 <alistair> q+
14:34:52 <Detlev> Detlev: repeating some content of the discussion of checking of pages with alternative versions
14:35:41 <Vivienne> ack me
14:35:49 <Detlev> Shadi: Tow issues: what we want in the nethodology regarding the process of checking alternative versions, second merge the text  (then it has to be updated anyway)
14:36:13 <Detlev> Vivienne: Not sure why these to sections 4a nad 4c should be merged
14:37:07 <Detlev> Vivenne: important to have them as separate steps - important to identify it as second steps where we discover references to alternative versions
14:38:32 <Detlev> Shadi: Point is that the alternative is usually identified during sampling/testing so it belongs together - now the two connected steps are interrupted by step 4b complete processes
14:38:53 <Detlev> q+
14:39:37 <Detlev> Shadi: none of the information should be removed - the issue is moving it to those sections in the methodology where it is needed
14:39:51 <Vivienne> zakim, mute me
14:39:51 <Zakim> Vivienne should now be muted
14:39:55 <shadi> ack ali
14:40:17 <Detlev> Alistair: OK with merging 4a and 4c
14:40:50 <Detlev> Alistair: cursory check on default pages will be needed to check whether alternative versions are properly linked to default pages
14:41:52 <Detlev> Alistair: if the link is fine, evaluation should move to alternative version, homing in on default version would be unfair since the alternative stands in for it
14:42:38 <Detlev> Alistair: Methodology needs to rest on definition of "conforming alternative version"
14:43:50 <Detlev> Shadi: Alistair's case refers to a situation where the alternative version intends to be a full replacement of the default page - bu tthere are many other cases where only some content is renderd on alternative version pages
14:44:48 <Vivienne> that's my understanding also, Shadi
14:44:49 <Detlev> Alistair: once a page is seen as conforming alternative version needs to be thrown out of the sample
14:45:17 <Detlev> Shadi: Understanding is that page and conforming version need to be seen as one entity
14:45:52 <Detlev> Alistair: Must not include issues for which conforming alternatives exist
14:46:12 <Detlev> Shadi: commissioner may want to know what is needed to avoid alternative version altogether
14:46:41 <alistair> q-
14:46:42 <shadi> q?
14:46:51 <Detlev> -q
14:46:56 <Vivienne> +1
14:46:58 <Detlev> q+
14:47:01 <martijnhoutepen> +1
14:47:03 <alistair> Merge ok by me
14:47:15 <Detlev> I have an alternative suggestion
14:47:16 <Mike_Elledge> +1
14:49:24 <Detlev> Suggestion to move section 4c to place 4b so it is adjacent to 4a - keeping checing SCs and checking alternative versions close together
14:49:43 <Detlev> Shadi: having them as separate checkpoints is a bit unnatural
14:49:51 <Detlev> I agree (/pesonally)
14:50:01 <martijnhoutepen> q+
14:50:13 <Vivienne> +1
14:50:22 <martijnhoutepen> ack me
14:50:30 <shadi> q- det
14:50:34 <Detlev> Resolution: Merge step 4a and 4c, make sure that content is preserved
14:51:26 <Detlev> Martjin: moving 4b back could mean that you lose a check whether a complete process as an alternative accessible version
14:51:40 <Detlev> Marttjin: swapping may not work well therefore
14:51:45 <martijnhoutepen> zakim, mute me
14:51:45 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
14:52:18 <alistair> q+
14:52:39 <Detlev> Martjin: 4d is needed on every page as well
14:52:45 <shadi> ack ali
14:52:50 <Detlev> Shadi: difficult to design it so that it flows well
14:53:58 <Detlev> Alistair: Wonders whether 4 c and 4d should be merged to ensure that the five conformance requirements are check in sync
14:55:18 <Detlev> Alistair: $c and $d are linked - this should be checked first to then split off into checking accessible alternatives, for those without alternaitves you would check all SCs
14:55:28 <martijnhoutepen> step 4a+4c+4d == ¨Check each page for the conformance requirements¨
14:56:21 <Detlev> Shadi: There were no requirements to remove info - changed order has a different flavour
14:56:33 <Detlev> q+
14:56:43 <alistair> q-
14:56:43 <Detlev> q-
14:57:10 <Detlev> Shadi: will ty to take a stab at reordering step 4 sections
14:57:15 <Zakim> -Kathy_Wahlbin
14:58:02 <Detlev> Shadi; Last issue is to merge 3a 3b and 3c because they are small and some evaluators were confused
14:58:08 <Detlev> Shadi; Last issue is to merge 3a 3b and 3c because they are small and some evaluators were confused
14:58:43 <Detlev> Shadi: Wants to merge without losing any info - would be more straighrfoerward guidance
14:58:52 <martijnhoutepen> ack me
14:58:55 <Detlev> +1
14:59:21 <Detlev> Martlin: Likes hoe 3 a - b- c- maps onto 2 a - b -c
14:59:39 <Detlev> Martjin: Seemd natural in the test run
15:00:28 <Detlev> Shadi: Some comlpained about frequent cross-referencing between sections, so this is what should be addressed
15:00:34 <martijnhoutepen> zakim, mute me
15:00:34 <Zakim> MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:00:55 <Vivienne> sure
15:01:02 <Detlev> Topic: Next steps
15:01:31 <Detlev> Shadi: will finish final editor draft together with Eric
15:01:46 <Detlev> Shadi: Final draft brought to WG review
15:02:35 <Detlev> Shadi: Either TF wants to see editor draft first or Shadi and Eric are given carte blanche to finsalise it and move it to WG review
15:02:38 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:03:08 <alistair> Go straight to review by other groups
15:03:28 <Detlev> Mike: Would like to take a final look at the draft
15:03:44 <shadi> ack mike
15:04:05 <Detlev> Shadi: fair dos - we discussed a lot of changes today, also not all comments addressed
15:04:06 <alistair> q+
15:04:09 <Vivienne> I'd like another look
15:04:26 <Detlev> Alistair: straight to review
15:04:30 <martijnhoutepen> agree with alistair
15:04:51 <Detlev> Detlev: don't mind if you finalise and it goes straight to review
15:05:30 <Detlev> Either way!
15:05:43 <Vivienne> yes please just because there are lots of changes
15:06:43 <Detlev> Alistair: no worth to have a version to look at without option to change it over again
15:06:56 <Detlev> Shadi: Sure changes could still be made
15:07:24 <Detlev> Alistair: why not going via the list so people can review it and object if they find issues
15:08:26 <Detlev> Detlev: What we discussed today aren't substantial changes
15:08:55 <Vivienne> ack me
15:09:03 <Detlev> Shadi: if preview is wanted that should respected
15:09:03 <alistair> q-
15:09:09 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:09:39 <Detlev> Vivienne: will go with wht group as a whole decides - may still be useful to look at the changes, also on the list
15:10:17 <Detlev> Shadi: to be clear: sending it to the WG means there wil be a survey where anybody can provide feedback
15:10:37 <Detlev> Vivienne: easy with that
15:11:17 <Vivienne> zakim, mute me
15:11:17 <Zakim> Vivienne should now be muted
15:11:21 <Detlev> Shadi: another few weeks needed to address coments from WG review proccess
15:11:49 <Detlev> Mike: will go with group as a whole, yields to majority
15:12:55 <Detlev> Shadi: suggests to wrap up comments (earliest on Monday for ppl to look at) - WCAG meting already on Tuesday so it's tight
15:13:24 <Detlev> Shadi: will send update to list ppl can then agree / object to sending to to WG review
15:13:54 <martijnhoutepen> ack me
15:13:55 <Vivienne> okay, good night all
15:14:00 <Detlev> Bye
15:14:02 <Zakim> -alistair
15:14:03 <Mike_Elledge> Thanks all! Especially Shadi and Eric!!
15:14:03 <Zakim> -MartijnHoutepen
15:14:05 <Zakim> -Detlev
15:14:07 <Zakim> -shadi
15:14:08 <Zakim> -Mike_Elledge
15:14:38 <Zakim> -Vivienne
15:14:39 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
15:14:39 <Zakim> Attendees were Vivienne, MartijnHoutepen, shadi, Detlev, Mike_Elledge, alistair, Kathy_Wahlbin, +1.617.492.aaaa
15:14:56 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
15:14:56 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:14:56 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:15:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:15:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/06/12-eval-minutes.html trackbot
15:15:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:15:05 <RRSAgent> I see no action items