W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > July 2012

EvalTF agenda

From: Velleman, Eric <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:35:09 +0000
To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3D063CE533923349B1B52F26312B0A46842737@s107ma.bart.local>
Dear Eval TF,

The next teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 5 juli 2012 at:
  * 14:00 to 15:00 UTC
  * 15:00 to 16:00 UK Time
  * 16:00 to 17:00 Central European Time (time we use as reference)
  * 10:00 to 11:00 North American Eastern Time (ET)
  * 07:00 to 08:00 North American Pacific Time (PT)
  * 22:00 to 23:00 Western Australia Time

Please check the World Clock Meeting Planner to find out the precise date for your own time zone:
  - <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html>

The teleconference information is: (Passcode 3825 - "EVAL")
  * +1.617.761.6200
  * SIP / VoIP -http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP

We also use IRC to support the meeting: (http://irc.w3.org)
  * IRC server: irc.w3.org
  * port: 6665
  * channel: #eval


#1. Welcome, Scribe

#2. Questionnaire
Short discussion about the output of the questionnaire.
Reference: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/

#3. Open issues for this Telco

# DoC ID 3 – Use stronger language - CLOSED

# DoC ID 6 (wrongly named 7 in earlier discussion)– Definition of “website part”
Issue: The current definition is quite vague. It does not address the
notion of "website area" that it seems to reflect from its use within
the document.
Resolution: Change to: “A set of web pages within a website that together provide common use or functionality. In some cases website parts may have their own design, navigation, and web addresses. In some cases website parts may not be directly managed by the website owners.”
Was: Web pages that serve the purpose and functionality of a website. This
includes web pages that are part of the navigation, design, and complete
processes of a website.

Examples of website parts include web applications such as a web shop,
wiki, or blog, as well as functional and thematic areas of a website
such as the web pages for an organizational department, for a product,
or that is restricted with password.

# DoC ID 7 – Clarify relation between goals and tool use – CLOSED
(We will keep it in mind and come back to it later)

# DoC ID 8 – User involvement
One comment - Propose to close now with no change to proposed resolution. The commenter will have ample opportunity to clarify his comment in the next draft rounds.

# DoC ID 9 - implicit/interpretable-from-reading
Some of you indicated that it would be good to clarify the comment a bit more before we try to close it. Shadi did this in the comments field and there were some positive responses to that. He writes "I think the issue is saying "determine who uses the website and how they use it ... important to define if a website .... is restricted to specific users"; Some people interpret this as a way to say "I only/don't have blind users" or such, and exclude other audiences. What we meant is the primary target audience and the context of use (public website vs intranet etc.). I think this section needs to be rewritten to avoid these misconceptions that have occurred."

New Proposed Resolution: We will need to rewrite this section to avoid misconceptions
New Rationale: What we meant is the primary target audience and the context of use (public website vs intranet etc.). This section needs to be rewritten to avoid these misconceptions that have occurred.

# DoC ID 10 – Unstable techniques
Proposed Resolution: We may not be able to address this issue in the next draft but will add in the editor note for section 3.4 that says: “EvalTF will attempt to provide clearer guidance on using Sufficient/Failure Techniques in practice in later drafts”. Also we will start a dialog with WCAG WG on this issue.

# DoC ID 24 – Typo auxillary – CLOSED (change to auxiliary :-)

# DoC ID 26: Appendix C more examples
Because this comments seems to come back often for parts of the document we still have to work on, Shadi proposes to clarify the status of appendix C to the readers. That would lead to a small addition to the proposed resolution. Let me know if you agree so we can close it this thursday.

Previous Resolution: No change for the moment
Previous Rationale: We will work on this section in more detail in later editor drafts.

New Proposed Resolution: No change, but add to editor note that this section may change in later drafts depending on how the other sections evolve.
New Rationale: To clarify status of this section to the readers (otherwise we may receive the same comments over again with the next publication).

# DoC ID 29 – Sort of errors
Shadi writes: We currently use the term "error" in several areas. We should revise its use and think about what we mean by it. I'm not sure that the longer "failures to meet one or more success criteria" replacement is sufficient to resolve the underlying issue. Having said that, I don't think we can resolve that until we actually have the information in Step 5 about how we will aggregate "errors".
In some cases (esp. for "Basic Report") we will probably only want to count by Success Criteria. This would result in statements like "X/Y success criteria were met". In other cases (eg. for "Detailed Report") we may want to actually count the instances of individual faults. This would result in statements like "X/Y occurrences of success criterion Z were met".

Proposed resolution: No change for the moment. We will keep this comment in mind when writing section 3.5 and then look back at earlier sections.

# DoC ID 31 – Template information
We seem to have some discussion about templates here. We define template in section 1.4 and additionally describe repetitive content in the note in section 3.3. Question still open from the comment: Is there content in the template? As we are talking about a full evaluation, I would say yes. In my experience, evaluation commissioners can mostly indicate pages on their website that use different templates (with repetitive content). That would mean
Resolution: “no change”
Does this cover the discussion started by Richard with many +1 in the questionnaire?

#4. Other issues

Eric Velleman
EvalTF Facilitator
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2012 21:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:21 UTC