<Julia> Presnt+

<scribe> scribe: sajkaj

Editors draft (ED) of the First Public Working Draft

js: Drum roll ...

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

mc: we have newer version, ...

js: let's do the separate uri for now ...

<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluation_update/guidelines/index.html

mc: Rachael and Jeanne worked up the content, and I did the structural setup
... should describe the pieces we're working with
... Secs 5 and 6 are "conformance" -- including the very narrow, but also wide eval/testing
... it's possible some content is redundant -- better to be redundant than to leave something out
... should be readable by someone unfamiliar with WCAG 2

js: Notes plain lang summaries are now available, though not yet in the drafts

rm: above based on most recent scoring thinking
... guidelines section still much in process
... evaluation is how to test, aggregate, etc
... Feedback needed is "did we miss something?" Esp did we neglect to explain something

js: should we talk through this? Or, are people just happy to read and respond on the WBS
... Responses on WBS due Tuesday

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluation_update/guidelines/index.html#functional-outcomes

rm: top level is functional categories, currently normative
... similar to 508/en
... functional needs are more detailed immediately below
... then the outcomes
... outcomes are quite central -- similar to SC in 2.x
... they're the testable criteria against which one tests
... guidelines group functional outcomes together in some meaningful way
... the howtos will be tied to the guidelines
... we've learned that howtos otherwise were repetitive
... methods are tech centered
... both tests and techniques
... notes we have yet to explain tagging

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about the plain language summaries and to ask about Techniques

js: we need to figure out what to call the techniques that are siblings of tests
... notes it confused me
... notes it does still ref wcag 2 techniques
... new ones being written are not "techniques" though

rm: what are we calling them?

js: lists several
... code samples; scoring; ...
... can we put a new heading in? I'm conflicted because 2.x provides expectations; but we didn't follow that

rm: believe this came from deep dive
... techniques seem to be partner of testing
... value to include it somehow -- suggest we say techniques includes samples, examples etc

<CharlesHall> a method is like an atomic how. in that sense it is near synonymous with the idea of techniques in 2.x

js: so then how to distinguish to wcag 2.x techniques that are also present?

mc: believe "techniques" is appropriate -- but the distinguish does indeed collide
... if we can't rename now, let's do ed note

<Fazio> are methods n techniques synonymous?

<KimD> I think we need a different word - strategy, tactics?

<Lauriat> More like a sample. Let's keep "technique" + note

mc: part of the problem is multiple technologies addressed ...

js: suggests ed note
... description, what applies to, code samples, etc -- all the subheadings of techniques

<ChrisLoiselle> Instead of techniques, approaches or procedures to meet the objective you are designing for

<jeanne> Methods Template https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KP6A9TmSkhgHvsTxu4FFGC9duzHKU-OBM_tcULC5Mew/

mc: added sections for tagging and techniques now ...
... suggest we not try to hard on naming just now

js: other comments?

<ChrisLoiselle> agreed!

js: asks for scoring walkthrough ...

<KimD> Scoring: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluation_update/guidelines/index.html#scoring

rm: sec. 5.3
... notes each outcome has methods and how they're met
... two kinds of tests
... traditional and wholistic
... talks about individual elements --- some kind of atomic element that's scopable
... at that atomic level it's binary
... notes there are alternatives -- i.e. a rating scale

js: notes a misplaced header ...
... if we do this we have to review how scoring was done ... 5.3.1
... scoring classification

francis: perhaps so

mc: perhaps an ed note

js: let's at least be figured out by fpwd wbs

rm: looks for method explanation

js: messier

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KP6A9TmSkhgHvsTxu4FFGC9duzHKU-OBM_tcULC5Mew/edit#heading=h.8sd1cinmwx7f Method template

js: came out of the deep dive
... oops .. bad link

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KP6A9TmSkhgHvsTxu4FFGC9duzHKU-OBM_tcULC5Mew/edit#heading=h.dzffwks486xy

js what's written is close, but not the same

js: definition is more precise

rm: hope so, just renaming adjectival to rating scale

mc: trying not to change any decisions, but document them
... so if things look wrong, we need to clarify our thinking

<Rachael> +1 to Michael's statement.

<jeanne> +1 to Michael

js: let's see what we did in clear words ...

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p-FayvZYonpDIlojblFSofi_KzjNdY5SrBOKauvV0u8/edit#heading=h.dzffwks486xy

js: notes 3 level categorization
... defined what's in each
... then overall scoring under scoring sect

rm: think example is currently correct ...
... example is for testing
... but they're reasonably similar

mc: do we want a general section on scoring?

[discussion of labeling and sectioning]

mc: moved "example" but no longer marked so

js: good

rm: see the problem -- something we need to clarify
... a method might have multiple tests; eacxh comes back with some kind of score
... believe we decided the adjectival rating comes out of tester's judgement call

js; my objection is the association to specific percentages

rm: we have ed note for this conversation
... ah! ok -- a little rewriting ...
... cutoff points will vary based on funct outcome
... say that in a note

[general happiness]

js: now updating method template to incorporate these helpful definitions

mc: committing ...

<Rachael> +1 to general happiness

Survey on the ED

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd/

rm: notes we have several weeks set aside for review
... if not accessible, please squeak up promptly
... trying to focus on continuing edit refinements before fpwd
... asking for comments with rating on severity
... not everything expected in fpwd is covered yet in wbs
... tuesday agwg will focus on showstoppers

js: encourages people to speak up on what you really like ... whatever it is

rm: encourage responses to help move forward -- even if it's all ok!

<KimD> which version of the draft are we reviewing for the survey? Where the links go or what we edited today.

js: do we want to get plain lang summaries in?

mc: happy to add
... should not affect wbs
... proposes to work on glossary even as we wbs

js: asks each subgroup to list todos for tuesday and timeline for that
... guidelines need to be on next wbs

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: jeanne, Francis_Storr, sajkaj, Lauriat, KimD, OmarBonilla, Jan, sarahhorton, shari, CharlesHall, Grady_Thompson, kirkwood
Present: jeanne Francis_Storr sajkaj Lauriat KimD OmarBonilla Jan sarahhorton shari CharlesHall Grady_Thompson kirkwood Caryn-Pagel AngelaAccessForAll bruce_bailey
Found Scribe: sajkaj
Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)