> EOWG home > EOWG Minutes
<shawn> scribe list out of date (http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html)
<shawn> s/scribe list out of date (http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html)/
Shawn showed the group the new documents now in the left nav and annotated nav pages of the WAI site
<shawn> Recently completed docs now posted on WAI site:
Shadi asks for some more input on the requirements for the evaluation section.
<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/improving.html, http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/harmon, http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/reviewteams.html, and http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/Overview.html (and related pages)
Shadi directed the group to the 'About' section of the changelog.
No general reactions to the about section.
Shadi asks for specific reactions on the use cases section
Judy asks to back up to the purposes section
Judy: want to make sure that what we had before in the changelog is aligned with the updated changelog.
Judy: we need to be clearer about purpose of the evaluation report as that has been the focus of a lot of discussion.
<Jack> Hi. Sorry I'm late!
William: don't understand why the title of this is 'changelog'
Judy: a lot of the requirements sections we have been doing sit at the top of the changelog.
SHadi: changes have been tracked but are scattered across the different parts of the resource and will be pulled together.
Shawn: this is all internal, hence stapling 'about', 'requirements' and 'changelog' together.
<Harvey> Does Ping? Pong! indicate disconnect?
<Harvey> Apparently not.
Judy: is this the information we need when we are thinking about the evaluation report?
Shadi: hopes to capture everything right now (including direction on the evaluation report) into this changelog page -- audience, purpose and use.
Shawn: strongly supports.
Shadi: wasn't planning to show this page -- it's reqs for the BAD *web site* for use internally by the BAD task force. We've had a lot of discussion since then and in order to have a resource suite that has the same sort of structure to extant resource suites, SHadi was creating these new, concise requirements in the changelog that we can use as goals to assess against at the end of the project. A lot of the content in the new Changelog reqs...
Shadi (cont): come from the old retrofit doc reqs.
Judy: new parts are the use cases, and we need to develop clarity in the goals of the evaluation report.
Shadi: so this isn;t a diff, we just need to get everything we need into the changelog reqs.
Judy: especially the evaluation report as we
keep getting stuck on it. *Then* we can go look at the use cases.
... are we clearly identifying the purpose of the evaluation report?
Barry: 'Purpose' reads as a resource description, not a purpose. The purpose is now to be found in satisfying the use cases.
Eric has joined the meeting
Helle: agree with Barry
<shawn> liam: proving a benchmark against which you can judge other evaluations
<shawn> Judy: what's the purpose of the Eval Report?
Henny: Showing how to apply the guidelines in the real world.
Shawn: is that for the evaluation report or overall?
Henny: evaluation report.
Liam: showing how to make best use of existing W3C WAI resources
Jack: giving one example of an evaluation report
<judy> showing how to id and explain the barriers on a site
Shawn: should it be something people can cut and paste from?
<judy> providing a reusable template
Liam: previous disagreement was over whether evaluation includes solutions or is merely a pass/fail audit.
<shadi> ACTION: reword the "this document/resource" phrases in the h3 of the requirements section to "the demo" (or similar) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/07-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask (later) about "A comprehensive and model evaluation report explains the accessibility issues and possibilities for repairing them."
Liam: we should try to do something we can get out quickly
<shawn> shawn: Is the goal to be a template that people can cut & paste?
Shadi: I disagree -- checkpoints missing for Priority 2 are only a handful of checkpoints, mainly multimedia and similar. The amount of work to include these is minimal.
Doyle: agree with Shadi, but not as strongly
William: agree with Shadi, but more strongly. Template better than quick and dirty.
Justin: People will use it as a template regardless of our intentions.
Henk: this should demonstrate, but we shouldn't
leave out any checkpoints. The report should be highly specific to this
particular web site, not cut-n-paste.
... this should be something a client could expect to receive from an evaluator.
... if it was completely comprehensive it would be artificial?
Pasquale: agree with Shadi and Justin -- put all the checkpoints in the report.
Shadi: restate the question: what is the target level? Currently WCAG priority 2.
pasquale: we need a site that is WAI compliant so we should pass all checkpoints (up to p3).
pasquale (correction): p2
<shawn> ISSUE: What to do about P2 checkpoints that are not applicable on this BAD site? (that is, include "template" text for them or not)
<shadi> liam: could test against all checkpoints, including p3 but only repair to p2
Liam: Liam: we can test against all checkpoints, set n/a for checkpoints n/a and repair to priority 2.
<shawn> william +1
<shawn> shawn +1
Wayne: this is an educational tool, not a template. E.g. if there are a lot of n/a checkpoints then people are going to get lost. I vote for example site, not template site.
Judy: would it be acceptable to keep the scope of this one narrower, keeping this as a good demo and go back to it to work it up into a template?
Jack: yes, if in the sample report we made sure that we included a disclaimer so that people don;t think it's a comprehensive disclaimer, and secondly a clear pointer to the real template somewhere else.
<Zakim> Helle, you wanted to ask wayne
Helle: annoying to see all the n/a checkpoints, but need to note that we only list checkpoints that are relevant on the site.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to even question not P3 and to note that in retrofitting we say also look at easy P3 issues
Shawn: you should list all checkpoints. Almost
all p1 and p2 are relevant, so few n/a's. In a true sample report you
wouldn't discuss them but you *would* list them.
... don't forget there are often easy p3 fixes which may be addressed.
<shadi> liam: if we put disclaimers, we should note that no user testing was done
<shawn> propose: List all checkpoints. Not provide descriptions for not applicable checkpoints. Task force re-consider Priority 3 Checkpoints and bring back to EOWG.
Wayne: possible compromise would be to list 'other guidelines not applicable to this site'
Judy: suggest that purpose of report is not to provide a complete template for an evaluation report.
Shawn: propose: purpose not a complete template but that we do list all checkpoints but put n/a to those which are n/a and don't describe those.
<shadi> proposal: evaluate all checkpoints (including p3), but only provide descriptions for checkpoints that are relevant to the demo site, and repair for priority 2
Shadi: propose: evaluate all checkpoints including p3 but only provide description for checkpoints that are relevant to the demo site and repair for p2
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask for which P3 not met
liam: access keys?
<shawn> yes, I object to not repairing P3 (unless further discussed)
<shadi> proposal: evaluate all checkpoints (including p3) and list all results in the checklist, but only provide descriptions for checkpoints that are relevant to the demo site
<Harvey> Could alert for access keys with pointer to resource for awareness
Group: re proposal: agreed
<shadi> resolution: evaluate all checkpoints (including p3) and list all results in the checklist, but only provide descriptions for checkpoints that are relevant to the demo site
<shadi> resolution: don't head for a template style for the evaluation report, but keep it simple for now (template maybe taken as its own project depending on EOWG priorities)
Subtopic: Before/After content re-review
Judy: we are specifically discussing and
understanding sensitivities, not voting on humour.
... first one is the suggestion that a Vet mate with a Panda, followed up by an allusion to artificial insemination by a 'D-list celebrity'
... second is use of 'organ donation', suggested change to 'brain donation'
... Third is pickling pandas.
Fourth is use of 'neonate'.
Judy: 'neo' can also be used with negative
... an example of awkward cross-cultural words is 'collaborator'
... the news page is mainly the area we need to look at
Shadi: time is running short. There is an email linked from the agenda listing four items that were the ones in question. We need to confirm which really are a problem and identify exactly the problem with each.
William: our version of what is acceptable is not the issue. It's making sure we are considering other people's sensibilities.
Jack: Agree with William but at a loss as to what is offensive about these.
Judy will speak with Liam offline
<shawn> minutes: @@
<shawn> oops, ignore that last one
<shawn> scribe: Liam
<shawn> UG! we should have done that at the beginning :-(
<shawn> agenda: @@