W3C

WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

27 Oct 2011

See also: IRC log

Attendees

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

Contents


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 $