WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

27 Oct 2011

See also: IRC log


Kathy, Shadi, Emmanuelle, Sarah, Amy, Denis, Kerstin, Eric, Liz, Vincent, Alistair, Elle, Tim, Mike, Vivienne
Samuel, Katie, Kostas, Detlev, Leonie


Methodology naming

Eric - Recap on short title

large agreement for waem

<AmyChen> +1

shadi - people are not so convinced that naming is important. Outreach aspects are important to consider.

shadi - using website might not be the most up to date term

shadi - web information systems was not opposed by EOWG

<AmyChen> +1

<kerstin> I asked some people to speak out WAEM in german, with strange results like wäm, waaaaaem, waaaaim :-)

<AmyChen> +1

shadi - what do people think of web information systems

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk about "website"

shadi - should web information systems be used in place of websites

<Zakim> dboudreau, you wanted to talk about "nice sounding acronyms"

dboudreau - WISE as an ackronym might be better than WAEM - for outreach the term needs to be captivating

dboudreau - we should try for an ackronym which would sum up what we are trying to achieve

eric - to get WISE we would need the term Web Information System

<Zakim> Nethermind, you wanted to talk about reception of acronyms by business stakeholders in big business

elle - from big business perspective - ackronym needs to sum up what we are trying to achieve exactly. Website as a term is dated, however, Web Information Systems might not be procise either

<AmyChen> I liked the short name WCAG-EM, gets away from needing acronym

speaker? Possibly WCAG should come up with the ackroynm

<kerstin> +1 for WCAG-EM

<dboudreau> +1 for WCAG-EM unless we can come up with something more creative with either WISE, AWARE or EQUAL

<Nethermind> agree with AmyChen and dboudreau

<kerstin> +1 for dboudreau :-)

eric - the ackronym issue will continue to be discussed

<kerstin> waaaaaem :-) geman

<dboudreau> at least with WCAG-EM, nobody needs to wonder about pronunciation… we've all learned to pronounce WCAG differently already ;p

eric - will try and finalise ackronym issue - place it on the agenda for next week

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<SarahSwierenga> +1 on voting on the narrowed list of names

shadi - probably not something which will reach a solution for next week

shadi - WCAG EM had alot of support

shadi - it is something which will require a lot of thought as for easier promotion a good ackronym is important

<AmyChen> including website/web information system in the subtitle would be good

shadi - more ideas - playing with other terms like Web Information System

eric - place it on agenda for next week

eric - next point table of contents

Table of contents

eric - there was low feedback on the table of contents, so lets discuss

eric - no responses from "is this table of contents unusable"

eric - overview of table of contents - trying to frame the table of contents in terms of typical standards document

eric - no responses "is there anything missing"

eric - requirements document covers sections 1 - 5

eric - section 6 - expertise for evaluating

Nethermind - question could be under 7.4 - is there anything which covers iterative checks.

Nethermind - recommendation - how to cover iterative testing (automated testing, user acceptance testing).

Amychen - iterative processes - weren't they covered in the scope. Possibly you might want to expand it in 7.4.

Amychen - What was the discussion about splitting the methodology

Eric - we need to mention that people with disabilities our involved

Amychen - order of document is not as important as content. What were the two things which people suggested splitting

Eric - it was between technical part and overview - but this is something for later

Tim - important to encourage in document evaluation during development of web systems

Tim - are we looking at different roles of evaluators - possibly it could be difficult to fit all roles into the same document.

<Nethermind> agree RE: different roles and the expansion of this document, dboudreau has a good document for role based accessibility requirements

<dboudreau> yep, i do ;p

Tim - normative and formative recommendations should be split out

<Tim> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer

<dboudreau> http://alpha.gcwwwtemplates.tbs-sct.ircan.gc.ca/theme-clf2-nsi2/accessRespBreakdown-eng.html Accessibility responsibility breakdown (WCAG 2.0)

dboudreau - this is what elle was referring to.

<Tim> QA Framework Primer - #3 Role-Based View

dboudreau - this could be a way to split the methodology into roles.

<Nethermind> dboudreau, totally agree

dboudreau - often asked why there is not a seperate evaluation method for development and maintainenace of web systems.

eric - could be a problem to solve later in the evaluation methodology

eric - should also keep in mind roles

<Zakim> dboudreau, you wanted to talk about "production processes vs maintenance processes"

dboudreau - also we discussed preliminary and deeper evaluations

eric - this was not the same thing as iterative

amychen - conformance claim should be made when the website is built. Is there a wiki or some way to all look at the documents we are creating

eric - we are planning to put all this information in a webpage - however, shadi mentioned a wiki

amychen - wiki would be great

<Kathy> that would be great

<Nethermind> agreed

<Nethermind> it's hard for me to follow email threads

shadi - wiki could be made for the group, it can over complicate things however

shadi - sometimes it does not allow public to tell the difference between raw content and agreed content

eric - it would be good to allow everyone to add things directly, with content edited

shadi - editing / acknowledgements takes a lot of resource

<Mike_Elledge> Could be very useful for collaboration...identifying our edits with our initials wld also permit discussion...

eric - like mailing list as its easier

amychen - commenting on document would be more active if wiki was used

eric - I will think about wiki to see how much work is envolved - on agenda for next time

kathy - email could be made easier with clearer threads

<AmyChen> +1

<Nethermind> +1

<dboudreau> +1 to kathy though it's always been a problem in every W3C WG

eric - agree, it is difficult to follow threads currently

shadi - agree also

shadi - better to send more emails if it allows subjects to remain clear - with clear threads

shadi - Eric and shadi to think about how best to manage changes to documents etc...

eric - proposal to take table of contents, format it and put it into a document online

eric - which is best way to discuss, should be take it section by section

<dboudreau> +1 to breaking it down yes

<AmyChen> +1

eric - we need to flesh out the different sections using the discussion list

Any other business

eric - any other business, 1) we have been gathering information about different evaluation methodologies, keep sending in well documented evaluation methods

<ericvelleman> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Website_Accessibility_Evaluation_Methodologies>

shadi - wiki of research and development groups will include links to all the collected evaluation methods

eric - 2) use cases and scenarios - it would be useful to make links to these also

shadi - different use cases for people conducting evaluations or reasons for having an evaluation conducted would be useful to collect

shadi - these could be useful when testing the applicability of the method we create

shadi - reminder about daylight saving in Europe - and the shift in US time for meeting, one week later the US will then shift also

Mike - confused between level of detail to provide

Mike - we have concentrated on public methods, but it would be useful to share methods that we use

eric - sharing methods would be good

mike - we have been focusing on the public domain, but would be willing to share internal methods

elle - more templated method the better

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/10/27 19:55:23 $