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

AW: EvalTF agenda

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:35:37 +0200
To: "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4ff59813.f40db50a.158a.0324@mx.google.com>
Regrets for this week.

Cheers

Kerstin

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2012 23:35
> An: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Betreff: EvalTF agenda
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> AGENDA:
> 
> #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
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results#x2586
> 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
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results#x2613
> 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
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results#x2614
> 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
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results#x2630
> 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
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq3/results#x2615
> 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 Thursday, 5 July 2012 13:35:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:14 GMT