See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/tests/
Shadi: We need to have test suites in order to
enter candidate recommendation state
... Without that we cannot finish EARL
... question for tool developers: does your tool already generate EARL
reports?
Kostas: we generate EARL reports already
... regarding the test suite: what is actually the test suite? Do we need to
create new tests or just put there sample reports of the tools?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/tests/test0001.rdf
Shadi: Ideally every report would have the input
(web page) along with it
... So we need sample input AND sample output
... If tool developers could provide such we could have a look at them in the
group
... Input and output only contain anonymized information
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/
<cstrobbe> AccessODF also generates EARL, but you need to extract it from the ODF files.
Shadi: We want a good set of tests, various
aspects of EARL, not repeat features
... So that tool developers can test their tool if they generate good EARL
reports
Kostas: we could generate such reports
Shadi: Please generate two examples and then we can discuss
CarlosV: We are very busy the next weeks, after
that we will concentrate on EARL reporting
... Our tool has an export mechanism of the object model to EARL, but it is
not up to date
Shadi: Christophe, can you send us an example ODF file that contains an EARL report?
Christophe: will do
Kostas: Can the EARL reports contain custom RDF classes?
Shadi: It depends on the type of the additional
information, maybe subclassing would be ok
... But we need to see the individual reports
<kostas> there is a noise
Shadi: Samuel and Christophe and me would be
reviewers
... CarlosV, Kostas and Philip would generate the EARL reports
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910
Shadi: first public draft was in March
... processed all public comments
... it's a complete document now
... we would like to publish working draft
... Two options for ERT-WG
... 1.) review in more detail before publishing
... 2.) publish as working draft and ERT-WG will review that
<kostas> i prefer the second choice
CarlosV: Would like to review before publishing but problem is the time
Shadi: any particular concerns?
CarlosV: I only read an early draft of it, which was to concise, but I assume that is not longer the case
Samuel: I would prefer the second choice as well
<kostas> it is better to become publishable asap for comments/reviews from all interested people
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#step5c
Shadi: we don't know if this section will stay
inside the document
... this would be for review of ERT-WG
Kostas: would like to have more examples in the document
Shadi: it is on our todo list
<shadi> 29-30 October, Lyon, France
<shadi> Eval TF face-to-face meeting
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf#f2f
Shadi: would like to have comments before this
F2F meeting
... ERT-WG members are invited as well
RESOLUTION: Approval for publication as an updated working draft
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-AERT-20000426
Shadi: one of the first deliverables of this
group
... idea was to develop ideas for evaluation tools
... a lot of this work has been integrated into techniques document of WCAG
2.0
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/
Shadi: basic objective is to inform tool
developers how to check the accessibility of web content
... today there are many tools available but they implement WCAG in different
ways and come to different results
... should be kind of cookbook
... evaluation in general
... how to implement checks, how they relate to success criteria and so on
Kostas: our tool is based on this document
Shadi: would you say that it would be of more help if this document would be more up to date
<shadi> AERT
Shadi: I'm referring to WCAG 2.0
Kostas: I'm referring to WCAG 2.0
<shadi> [[Status of This Document]]
CarlosV: isn't the document is totally obsolete?
Shadi: I think the techniques of WCAG may not be
enough for tool developers
... You need combine different techniques, ....., WCAG 2.0 has a layer of
logic on top of the techniques
... That is not all explained in the techniques document
... Title and content of the document may change but the general objective
will stay the same
CarlosV: I think the documents form UWEM are more
usable
... we follow this approach when developing our tools
Shadi: I think UWEM was addressing many different
target user groups at the same time
... which is just a design question
... we try to break that down into more modules
... new document should address evaluation tool developers
... there will be overlap with UWEM, but hopefully it will be more
standardized
... we would like to bring that document up to date
... next step would be to define the requirements of such a document
<shadi> 19 September - tentative, probably not
<shadi> 26 September - confirmed