See also: IRC log
EV: new editor draft and disposition of comments
are up, latest version 28th jan.
... almost all of the comments are adressed
EV: survey 7 closed, survey 8 opened last
tuesday
... hope to publish new editor draft monday
... things accepted in surveys will be included in next ED
... survey open until Saturday evening
<ericvelleman> Hi, phone just stopped, calling in now
EV: ongoing discussion about combining
evaluations
... does Accessibility support need to be uniform on a website?
VC: It will be hard to qualify, especially with
different evaluators that don't agree with each other in a crosschecking
situation
... Concerned about conflicting results
DF: David MacDonald pointed out the difference
between support amongst Assistive Technologies
... if some AT does not support some accessible function, it shouldnt be wrong
because some AT does not support it
KHS: the code is more important than the AT used, necessary to document what is used
My line is gone, can someone scribe?
dialing in again
KHS: vitally important to identify all tools, AT,
UA, OS
... if semantics are properly programmed, that is more important than tools,
at
DF: very hard to define what AT you have to use per SC, and probably double work. Some criteria are easy to check on the basis of code
EV: we can add "require evaluators to describe what AT, etc they use"
KHS: you don't need to test every criteria with every tool
<Detlev> agree
EV: finish this discussion on list, as we seem to agree, will make a text suggestion
ME: we can maybe define the types of tools that can be used during evaluation
SAZ: not sure it is feasible to require to report
every tool used per check
... It can be an option for reporting
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130128#step1d
SAZ: natural part of evaluation to define and document tools used
DF: there is a certain risk if you define the
tools used, if you do not use every tool on every sc
... We make comments describing interesting finds with AT
EV: I will suggest a text on the list
<Detlev> skip link - sure - thats part of the check in the technique!
KHS: important to also report the findings with AT and additional checks
I am disconnected again
<ericvelleman> Eric will make a proposal on the list. Please review and comment the coming days so we can include it into the next editor draft
KHS: do not prescribe that evaluators have to use it, but if you use it
SAZ: if step 1d would be : "define the tools /
methods to be used (optional)"
... or combine 3.1.4 and 3.1.5
EV: see 3.4.5 step 4e
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130128#step4e
SAZ: step 4e may indeed be a better place
EV: refer back to it from 5a (reporting)
DF: detailed report: would you have to register every check for every page for every SC
EV: good question, we do not adress this yet
KHS: raises the bar, but may be in the hands of the evaluation commissioner
EV: i will check if we have the same sort of issue in more places in the document
EV: do we make random sampling optional?
... proposed resolution: keep non-optional for now
DF: We need to define 'random'
... if we keep it easy i do not object to keeping it non-optional
EV: few topics on the list
<Detlev> Martijn: I'm fine with *not* defining randim it if the process as straightforward as suggrsted by Richard
KHS: this can go hand in hand with the level of detail of testing
SAZ: Detlev suggested to move away from
terminology s.a. random, sample
... we might take a more pragmatic approach: make it random-like
... different websites need different approaches
<Detlev> "targeted heuristics"
EV: discussion going on on the list, multiple
threads
... i propose a non-statistical way, at least for the next working draft and
following test-run
<Detlev> I was basically just playing back Richard's suggestions...
<Ryladog> CSUN?
EV: end of call, do the rest of discussions on the list/survey
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/EvalTF_CSUN2013/results
SAZ: currently no meeting, not enough people
EF, TB, ME: no travel budget
EV: no official group meeting
<Sarah_Swierenga> I'd like to meet whoever is going to be at CSUN - I won't be arriving until Tuesday afternoon.
<Vivienne> What about WWW 2013?