See also: IRC log
<MartijnHoutepen> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120915
<MartijnHoutepen> diff version https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120910&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120915
<vivienne> looks all good to me
<Mike_Elledge> +1
EV: Do we agree on Editors Draft?
... I did nit recieve any changes. I will be turning to it
EV: Last time we turned into a working draft
... It is not too different. Shadi will edit. 20th October ends the public
review
... We will have time to prepare for Lyon TPAC
Vivianne: What is the review process for MUSTs?
Vivienne: What is the method?
EV: W3C puts in a Public Draft mode, and we can send to our friends, and it will be announced on a mailing list
Vivienne: Distro list is a way to get it to a wider audience for the WAI R&D
EV: Let us ask Shadi to do that
R&D
PK: I dont recall being on that list
Vivienne: Can we check with Shadi
<scribe> ACTION: Eric: Ask Shadi about the R&D Working Group list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-eval-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Ask Shadi about the R&D Working Group list [on Eric Velleman - due 2012-09-27].
<Mike_Elledge> ?
EV: Shadi is traveling now, he might be able to
turn in into a public working draft later today
... While we are receiving the comments I suggest we work on the issues, not
the comments at first
<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/
EV: Please send it to as many lists as you know
for this review. We have an issue tracked we opened it
... We have an Issue and Action summary
<Mike_Elledge> +1 Issue tracker is great!
EV: We will discuss the sampling and other
items
... I will add them to the issuea in the tracker, I will make an agenda for
the next meeting to discuss each week on the call
<vivienne> sounds good Eric
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
<kathy> fine
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<agarrison> +1
EV: Then we will have at least a months to cover all of the issues on the list. Is that OK with everyone?
Group agrees
<vivienne> sure
<korn> +1
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
<kathy> +1
EV: Today we want to publish a Public Working Draft at some time later today. We will disseminate for review.
Vivienna: Do we have an agenda for the TPAC?
EV: I am not sure, I think that is a good discussion fir this group
Peter Kron: I will not be able to be at TPAC, it would be nice to catch some specific times can call in
EV: Yes, I will discuss with Shadi if we cabn have IRC
<scribe> ACTION: Discuss IRC with Shadi [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-eval-minutes.html#action02]
<korn> +1!!
<korn> That's a great idea!
<MartijnHoutepen> Katie: will we have an opportunity to perform actual evaluation at tpac?
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<vivienne> yes, very much. I'm working on one at the moment
<kathy> good idea
Katie Haritos-Shea: I suggest running through a test drive of our methodology at the TPAC
Griup Agrees
EV: The other important thing is that we try it and see what we cone up with
<vivienne> yes please Mike
Mike: I just put them into a word document, that
includes the comments
... I can send around
EV: yes, please do
Peter Korn: I would like to see us do a run through of our methodology. We had great success with run throughs on the TEITAC, it will be very valuable to do this
Peter Korn: We should NOT pick some well known property, but use an anonymous named site. At TEITAC members used some of their own prodcuct to test
Peter Korn: Industry members chose some of there own products. We chose the Solaris OS for example
Peter Korn: It help greatly to surface problems. It will be easier if someone offers their own products - not the New York Times. Best not to give the idea that the W3C tests website
Peter Korn: Therefore it will be best that someone offer their own site
Peter Korn" Or, test the W3C site. It is Important to anonymise
Vivienne: I agree, what if we approach organizations?
The focus is on.....testing our methodology in process (NOT the web sites)
Peter Korn: Just make clear that we are testing our methodolg
Kathy: Be sure that we are including Web
appllications
... There are still holes, and someone in our group is working on one, that
would be great
EV: Very good
Tim: How do we assess at the end. ?
<korn> We should have a list of questions written down ahead of our review.
Katie: We are trying to determine where we have problems
Tim: We need to define what is our methodologies and what are issue
Peter: Maybe we should have some questions in advance
<korn> Key questions I think include:
<korn> 1. Does the methodology cover the situations arising from this website?
<korn> 2. Are there significant functiunality / parts we aren't reaching (statistical methodology)?
<korn> 3. Are there
EV: Maybe it is a good idea to start a discussion on the list what would our trial look like. Let have this talked about on the list
Peter: Would you be willing to start this?
<vivienne> I think the trial is a great idea
Peter Korn: Yes, I am starting it right now
EV: do all agree? Homework is what will our
test/trail look like?
... We will set up an agenda
Any other issues?
Tim: When will the updated draft be published?
EV: Probably tonight when Shadi is finished with
his travel
... I have to congradulate us all. Hopefully we will get many comments