See also: IRC log
Eric we are getting closer to a new public draft
Eric now there is enough flesh for a trial run
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207
Eric please look at the document - there are remarks in the document where changes have been made
Eric - some of the remarks are objections, others just comments
Eric - There were a lot of remarks in Survey 8 - so changes have been incorporated
Eric - there are links to the survey from the document
<Detlev> ciuld you copy urls to Questionnaires, once again? - sorry
Eric - running through the document
Eric - there are a few notes, editor notes, notes for discussion etc
<MartijnHoutepen> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq8/results
Eric - look at the changes and see if you agree - we could do another survey to capture peoples responses
Eric - DOC has not had any changes, so this will be done at a later date
Eric - this is diff marked, so you can see what has been done in the past weeks
Eric - changes are explained above or belong the changed blocks
Eric - Red is removed, Green is what replaced what was removed, and Yellow is brand new
Eric - Agenda point 3, walkthough
Eric - for the current form I shall send round a survey
Shadi - Maybe we could try to combine this with the survey for approval for publication
Shadi - this would allow people to provide comments
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
Eric - this is still a draft
<Mike_Elledge> +1
Eric - shall we do an approval for publication survey?
Eric - we could send this round and asking for feedback by next week
Peter - is this long enough
Shadi - should be, a little tight but it would be ready before CSUN
Shadi - with a final round of work it could be done before CSUN
Eric - open issues diagram, and uniform accessibility support
Eric - new diagram created by group - but there were a few remarks about the arrows in the diagram
Eric - the current diagram is the one produced by Shadi
Eric - one comment was that in reporting we should only have one arrow going forward
Shadi - looking for a url for both images
<MartijnHoutepen> The old: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207#procedure
<Kathy> I have it
Shadi - come back to this point, and I shall try to find them
Eric - Uniform accessibility support
<MartijnHoutepen> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq7/results#x2586
Eric - on the survey number 7 - 12 people answered and 2 rejected it
<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207#step4b
Eric - we could drop the sentence requiring the uniform accessibility support
<ericvelleman> “For example, if one part of a website is accessible using one set of tools that is different from a set of tools that is needed to access another part of the same website, then the website is effectively not accessible for some users. Accessibility support needs to be uniform throughout a single website.”
Eric - this is the url to step 4b
Eric - we could try to repair the sentence
Eric - we could come back to it in the next version of the doc
Peter - As written this does not make sense
Peter - first question - what constitutes a set of tools
Eric - finger on the right place
Eric - Maybe we should put this off to a later stage
Eric - We could add this as an issue to come back to
Eric - For the moment we could drop this sentence
Detlev - It could read as the set of tools we use to analyse the content, it also could be read as if the tools where a screen reader
Detlev - You may not use any tools
Eric - Would it be ok to drop this until later
Shadi - the intent this was user tools
Shadi - lets assume its user tools i.e screen readers
Peter - But,different AT has imperfect support for certain things
Peter - so if you use two different screen readers you might get two different things
Peter - It would cause many issues
Martijn - It would have to work for types of assistive technology
Shadi - at the F2F we started to delve into this issue
Shadi - e.g. you have a large website and you start to buy pieces of content from different suppliers - but this could be difficult
Shadi - difficult in terms of getting support from all ATs for all parts
Peter - the problem is where the granularity is the website or the web page
<Detlev> if things aren't attainable in practice, should they be mandated by WCAG-EM? I think not.
Peter - it would be fine to advise when possible use a single tool and be uniform, but don't require it
Eric - would it be ok to take out the sentence
Peter - take the sentence out or take out both sentences
<Detlev> agree
Eric - I meant take out the last part
<ericvelleman> Proposal to take out: "“For example, if one part of a website is accessible using one set of tools that is different from a set of tools that is needed to access another part of the same website, then the website is effectively not accessible for some users. Accessibility support needs to be uniform throughout a single website.”"
<MartijnHoutepen> +1 and maybe include peter's advise
<ericvelleman> And open issue to discuss this for later version
<Ryladog> +1
Eric - Take out and place as an issue for later discussion
<ericvelleman> ISSUE: discuss uniform accessibility
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-12 - Discuss uniform accessibility; please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/issues/12/edit>.
<Detlev> Alistair: why open up an issue if it has just been discussed - seems entirly unrealistic, so no need to re-discuss
Alistair - are we not just going to have the same discussion when we discuss it again
Katy - we do need to discuss it later
Katy - some of the problems which peter brought up need to be discussed,
Katy - we may need to bring in maturity levels when we use certain technologies
Peter - note in the issue that we might say this is a recommendation not a requirement
Peter - it is not just maturity
Peter - if I use something which used to work, but does not work now why should I be punished
Eric - issue to be discussed later
<Detlev> fine
Eric - take line out
<Ryladog> +1
<Kathy> fine to take it out
Shadi - two lines
Fine
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
Eric - Objection to publication - writing error, but this was editorial
Eric - so just the diagram
Shadi - is it ok Kathy to send the diagram to the list
Eric - a number of people were ok with the current diagram
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Feb/0004.html
Eric - the issue was about arrows - do we need arrows everywhere?
Peter - I like the new one much better
Kathy - we had talked about showing interaction between different steps
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Feb/att-0004/W3C-Graphic.jpg
Kathy - things can get complex, but the diagram should show that at any stage you can go back
Kathy - the question is what do we want to show
Peter - the issue with the old one was the size of the text. The waterfall design might be a good design.
Detlev - agree second looks better, but a waterfall idea might be better.
<Tim> step 5 leads directly into step 1 again - what happens if we dont want to do that?
Detlev - this looks a little like a quality circle
Detlev - we are really just looking at a website at a point in time, so a waterfall might be good
Detlev - arrows are not so important
Katy - agree, I like second one, but waterfall might be best
Shadi - What if we took out yellow arrow for now
Shadi - it would be good to have something which looks better than this - before getting a new proposal
Eric - we could use the new diagram until we find another one
<Detlev> it will look damaged if we remove the yellow arrow...
Eric - Peter you propose to complete a waterfall design
Shadi - take out the yellow arrow
Eric - Solution for now - choose new, await further designs
Kathy - are we going back to one Shadi produced, but we could quickly create a highbred between the old and new
Shadi - which one do we go with now - old or new?
<Detlev> use new one for now
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<Ryladog> +1
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
Eric - replace old with new for now, then await new entrants into the diagram design competitions
<Detlev> fine
Peter - keep the one Shadi made, as it is a waterfall
Peter - I've finished the diagram and will sent it out to the list
Eric - I shall make a survey to see approval for publication - open for a week until next telecon
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
Eric - is this ok, it seems we have already agreed
<Ryladog> +1
<Kathy> +1
<ericvelleman> +1
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
<Liz> +1
Shadi - I can work with you on that
Eric - final minutes
Eric - Peter, how far are you
Peter - email sent
<Kathy> I can see it
Peter - it has bigger text, and the arrow heads are not obscured. Steps are also included
<Sarah_Swierenga> i can see it too
Peter - it is in as a PNG
<MartijnHoutepen> me too
<Kathy> i can do that
<Kathy> I would like to see that Peter
<MoeKraft> definitely agree the arrows need cleaning, they are overlapping each other.
Peter - it is not pretty, but the content is what needs to be debated
<Mike_Elledge> Let's put them all there.
<shadi> :)
Eric - what should we do, keep old, take new or take Peter's
<Detlev> I caan prettify it
Shadi - Peter could you work on this this week
Peter - No
Kathy - I could make the arrows a bit prettier
Peter - send me a mail and I will respond
<Mike_Elledge> have to go...bye!
Eric - Shadi, we will leave you graphic
<Liz> bye
Shadi - I shall request that the other working groups gloss over the graphic for now, with the idea that they will get a new graphic in the future
Shadi - This should be an action, which Kathy looks like she has taken on
Eric - Survey launched today, or tomorrow - then we could see if we could get out a working draft
Eric- the working draft would allow a trial
Eric - a trial would generate a lot of useful feedback
Shadi - we will not be meeting at CSUN
Shadi - there were not enough people
Eric - any further items
Eric - no
