<Julia> Presnt+
<scribe> scribe: sajkaj
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
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 ...
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
<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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]