WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force (Eval TF) Weekly Teleconference Meeting

15 Sep 2011


See also: IRC log


Eric_Velleman, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Shadi_Abou-Zahra, Detlev_Fischer, Kathy_Wahlbin, Samuel_Sirois, Elisabth_Fong, Mike_Elledge, Tim_Boland, Denis_Boudreau, Vivienne_Conway, Kostas_Votis, Vincent_François, Emmanuelle_Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Kerstin_Probiesch, Alistair_Garrison


Discussion of the requirements

Eric: requirements are on the W3C website

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20110915.html

Eric: notes are being sent out as a word document

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Sep/0065.html

Eric: terminology has been discussed but not agreed upon by the group - need to review
... start looking at chapter 1 - goals
... discussion on terminology; these are used in the goals and requirements
... is everyone ok with the section on goals

Liz: asked about tolerence metrics and what that is

Eric: tolerence is the situation where you have many images and only one fails; then does this fail

Detlev - goals need to include independent verification; at least test results should be included to add credibility

Dbourdreau - goals should be described in terminology; tolerence metrics should be included

Kostas: goals - critical path analysis; not sure if it should be requirement

Eric: scope is not much different
... everyone agree on scope?

Shadi: should be the methology itself not the task force

<sinarmaya> I was expecting that the "scope" was the scope of the methodolofy too.

Shadi: frame with sub-heading coordination with other groups

Detlev: add to scope; full lifecycle from building to maintaining; should be spin offs to extend more than a single evaluation

Eric: Detlev to draft ideas

Kostas: reason why we need the methology is missing

Eric: Kostas to provide text as to why

Dbordreau: methodology should have preliminary evaluation (approach different than the full evaluation). Have multiple versions for quick eval; simple and easy on representative sample

Eric: good idea; add to scope

Ryladog (katie): agrees with Kosta; sampling methodology should be a separate document as it is a different process

Eric: should be included in the metholodology. Sampling is required for all evaluations

Tim: Authoring tools working group has information on previews; we should include this in our methodology and be consistent with

Eric: Tim will send link and text summary. This will be included in the document

Shadi: this is ok to add to the document; evaluation process where does it start? this will determine the scope of the authoring tools work
... preliminary or light weight evaluation - need to be considerate about that and we need guideance for both. Scope needs to reflect what we can do

Eric: should include both scenarios
... should include 1 page evaluation but this will follow WCAG

Shadi: this metholodology should include small and large websties

Detlev: same approach can be used for preliminary and full evaluation. All about selecting pages

Denis: preliminary evaluation should not be a requirement; nice to have to give context but not required
... agrees with Detlev about the selection of pages; preliminary evaluation can be used to check to see if the site is ready for review

Katie: sampling, preliminary and full blown are three different approaches

<dboudreau> +1 to targeting a specific component

Vincent: preliminary is not the right name; idea is to get a quick evaluation

<dboudreau> "quick shot evaluation" instead of preliminary?

Mike: accessibility problems are identified and the document needs to indicate the issue types; do we want to have two different sets of criteria

Mike: single page, sampling page, full site review - what is the difference in approach

Eric: do we need preliminary evaluation

Shadi: two types of preliminary evaluations - less technical and technical preliminary review

Shadi - we are talking about experts conducting the evaluation

Denis: preliminary is not non-technical evaluation; still need to verify the page and need the level of technical knowledge but small set of things that are being checked
... it is for people to get the general picture

Eric: Move on to the target audience

<ssirois> i don't know if I would use words like "light" or "less", that may leave the client with the idea that the evaluation has no value. i like "quick shot" expression more. making it quick doesn't make it less "accessible", just not looking at ALL points.

Eric: send other target audiences over email
... requirements - section on terminology; look to see what needs explanation. If on W3C then we will use that. If not the group will write up
... 15 requirements were discussed on the list; please react to that
... should we have unique interpretation in the requirements

Detlev: yes

Eric: should we take this out? Anyone disagree

Denis: taking it out would leave a hole

Eric: R08 - tried to make it more clear; R11 - a lot of discussion on naming
... we need to discuss these three on the mailing list; do we need change of text/naming; should they be split
... please also give feedback on the other items
... missing - transparency? Discussion thread will be started

Mike: agree with the previous comment on unique interpretation would leave a hole

Katie: questions on critical path - WCAG it is referred to workflow; we should follow the WCAG terminology

Detlev: conformance is called complete processes

Eric: Katie will research the WCAG terminology
... most of the requirements were agreed on. Let's concentrate on the others

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/09/15 20:38:20 $