MM: Matt May
JT: Jutta Treviranus
LN: Liddy Nevile
HS: Heather Swayne
CMN: Charles McCathieNevile
LN: Proposes that we first talk about our eval technique action items from the F2F.
JT: HS has been nominated for Guideline 7.
HS: Will be transitioning to a new role in Microsoft. Will not continue with AUWG. But someone from Microsoft will continue.
JR: Presents the re-ordering proposal.
CMN: Likes proposal for 2 reasons - 1. makes technique splits easier - 2. makes a good desk check of the checkpoints.
CMN: One problem - the tiers could be mis-used for prioritization. CMN would prefer Tier 4(Guideline 7) to be Tier 1. What if we just re-formulated guidelines.
JT: Prioritization was sensitive. JT supports positive optics
JR: Agrees on need for explanation that Tier 4 is very important.
LN: Tier headings are best for buyers.
JT: But tier headings are still there.
HS: Agrees with helping with the transisition - but does not see the use of Tier 3 - integration is part of Tier 2 (supporting)
JR: Argues for distinctiveness of Tier 3. That the techniques will be differently categorized.
CMN: Expands on technique categorization argument - Tier 3 is much closer to the UI than Tier 2 which is closer to formats. Tier 2 is more about functionality - Tier 3 is about how that gets presented to the user.
CMN: Agrees to mainataining the continuity argument, but the tiers approach could be proposed to EO as a basis for the buyers guide.
JT: Tiers 1 and 2 is what you need to do, Tier 3 is how you need to do it.
AGREED: We will use the Tiers re-organization
MM: Reads document we put together from F2F.
JT: We want generic eval techs for each checkpoint
JT: These generic techs are intended to be used when no evaluation suite is available or to help put together a suite:
JR: This was based partly on my evaluation template additions (background, etc.), was it not?
JT: We can't proceed until we get the structure. Matt will send that to the list.
MM: Action Item: Send structure created at F2F.
JT: We were filtering the techniques into categories - represented by icons. The user would then look for one or more of the icons.
JT: The categories don't do a very good job of breaking up the techniques. Can JR elaborate.
JR: Tiers proposal includes ability to categorize differently for different Tiers.
CMN: Overlap is not the best way of assessing efficiiency.
CMN: This is a reflection on our techniques - most are very general and so that is why so many or relevant to so many tool types.
JR: We should produce a techs for Wombat.
CMN: We should revisit after we get some developer feedback.
JR: We should bring up the Tiers proposal as a basis for buyer's guide steps.
JT: we will be presenting our view on the scope of our evaluation document.
MM: Face to face timing. Sept. 20 is bad for Matt (2 days before Wedding) - what about 18-19?
LN: OK
HS: Should be OK for Microsoft?
JR: OK with me.
JT: OK - Doug Grude should be able to make it.
CMN: Won't be able to do that week.
MM: Action Item: Will ping Judy about Washington DC host.
JT: Action Item: Will talk with Vancouver host.