Telephone: +1.617.761.6200
Conference number: 2894
JR: Jan Richards
JT: Jutta Treviranus
JB: Judy Brewer
HS: Heather Swayne
PJ: Phill Jenkins
KHS: Katie Haritos-Shea
CV: Carlos Velasco
CMN: Charles McCathieNevile
JT: EO has informally requested a more complete tools page. More comprehensive reviews - as a resource for authoring tool purchase.
JT: UA compliance page much easier to do. There are for
JT: Original intent of tools page was to determine what was out there. What techniques were being used.
PJ: Beyond the charter. Maybe the developers could self-evaluate.
KHS, HS, JR: It is WAY to large an undertaking.
DECISION: We will not eval all tools.
JT: Who would eval the reviews?
PJ: There would have to be a process for self-evaluations.
PJ: Developers are interested in selling the other features (ease of use, etc) as well as accessibility features.
JT: Should this go back to EO with this.
HS: We already have pretty good disclaimers on the tools page.
JB: EO has a continuing interest in how we present our evaluations.
HS: We welcome feedback.
JR: I propose removing tools that we do not have evals for.
JB: We should be adding not removing. We could say we are building a resource.
JR: There could be thousands.
KHS: Thinks its useful to list what's out there.
JT: Just examples of the tools in the classes.
JB: ACTION ITEM: Will take action item to write blurb to IG list for input.
PJ: ACTION ITEM: Will take message to author sites - "what tools are being used"
CV: ACTION ITEM: Send list of tools he has compiled.
JB: We should make collaboration reviews easier.
JR: ACTION ITEM: Speak with Carlos and Ian about putting together a review. With a template.
JB: How to we review reviews?
JT: Usually informal presentation to group.
JB: Flags problem on "When possible" company informed in disclaimer.
JT: Two issues - 1. self eval process 2. Outside evaluation
JT: Outside group evaluations (2 weeks provided to developer before posting).
DECISION: 2 weeks is OK
JT: Notifying the group about an evaluation.
JT: GROUP EVALUATION
1. Notify the group before an eval starts
2. Notify the developer before eval starts - STANDARD FORM
3. Notify the developer after eval finished and give 2 weeks - STANDARD FORM
4. Include developer response - factual edits to review by reviewer, we will link to developer rebuttals
5. There is disagreement - dialog is good, even if time lines are blown.
6. Group should not publish review until there is resolution of issues.
7. We can say - published without feedback
8. The template should include a statement about whether the developer responded.