WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

17 Nov 2011


See also: IRC log


Vivienne, Martijn, Detlev, Amy, Shadi, Denis, Richard, Eric, Sarah, Mike, Leonie, Kerstin
Kathy, Emmanuelle, Samuel, Tim, Alistair


First formal publication

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20111115

eric: first formal publication online
... Try to publish a first public working draft for feedback
... People who are not in the meeting have agreed to publication

Detlev: sections sampling, evaluation are quite empty

eric: agree much is missing in document, but it is clear which direction we are going

<Mike_Elledge> yep

denis: don't care about missing texts, just send something out to show public what we are working on

<Detlev> Fair enough ..

vivienne: understand Detlev. There are a lot of blanks, but if we need something out there we should publish, but maybe wait a week or so

<vivienne> Ah, I see. Didn't know what was happening in the background

eric: Different groups thinking about working on the same thing, we can show we are already working on something

F.e. Mandate 376 ( EU )

shadi: agree with Detlev / Vivienne, but the next time we can bring it in will be early december. If we do not publish this week it will probably be janaury before our first publication.

<vivienne> With that in mind, Shadi, I'm happy for it to go out there now.

leonie: good opportunity to get it on peoples radar, we don't risk (possibly) already having taking a wrong turn, lots of feedback

<Detlev> yes agree

<AmyChen> +1 to what Leonie said

Mike: depends on what we hope to achieve, earlier publication is good for early feedback

eric: agree with mike

shadi: encourage ourself to publish every 3 months

<Mike_Elledge> detrimental

<Mike_Elledge> :^)

<dboudreau> yes

<vivienne> fine with me

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Detlev> fine

eric: decision send it to wcag with intention to publish


<SarahSwierenga> +1 try to publish - like you said, they may kick it back anyway

<kerstin> I agreed already :-)

shadi: there exist a possibility wcag sends it back

vivienne: are there plans to ask us to write parts?

eric: I have written alot already, because of anticipated discussion I haven't published everything at once

<vivienne> yes, that's fine

Eric: I will write proposal, TF replies

vivienne: agrees

denis: getting new content in would postpone publication ??

shadi: there is a choice: add new content before publishing or publish first, add content later. I suggest publishing this now and working on another branch
... continue discussing in TF on editorial draft

<dboudreau> +1 to shadi's explanation

<vivienne> sounds good to me

eric: proposal: do not add information in this version, at the same time work on a different editor draft

<dboudreau> I support this proposal

eric: the proposal to publish this version is agreed by TF

<vivienne> I'm happy then to send out the Nov.15 version

Detlev: fair enough to get it out, but it lacks a bit of "meat".

<Detlev> fine.

eric: detlev, your concerns/questions will be discussed
... small things that have to be changed can be added this day, shadi proposes this version to working group
... we continue work in a next editorial draft

shadi: i sent editorial cleanups to the list

<Detlev> looked OK to me

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Nov/0059.html

<shadi> [[

<shadi> 6. Expertise required for using this methodology

<shadi> Users of the Methodology are assumed to be knowledgeable of WCAG 2.0,

<shadi> accessible web design, assistive technology, and of how people with

<shadi> different disabilities use the Web. Evaluation according to this

<shadi> methodology can be carried out by individuals but using review teams

<shadi> with combined expertise involving people with disabilities and older

<shadi> people in the evaluation process is strongly recommended.

<shadi> 6.1 Using Review Teams with Combined Expertise

<shadi> The _W3C/WAI evaluation resource suite_ provides complementary guidance

<shadi> on _Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility_. Review

<shadi> teams can provide better coverage of the expertise required in the

<shadi> understanding of web technologies, evaluation tools, barriers that

<shadi> people with disabilities experience, assistive technologies and

<shadi> approaches that people with disabilities use, and accessibility

<shadi> guidelines and techniques.

<shadi> 6.2 Involving People with Disabilities and Older People

<shadi> The _W3C/WAI evaluation resource suite_ provides complementary guidance

<shadi> on _Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility_. Evaluating with

<shadi> users with disabilities and with older users can identify additional

<shadi> issues that are not easily discovered by expert evaluation alone. It can

<shadi> make the evaluation process more effective and more efficient,

<shadi> especially when users are involved throughout the development process.

<shadi> ]]

shadi: proposed section 6 rewrite

<vivienne> yes

mike: evaluation should not only be based on automatic evaluation

vivienne: in reply to mike: some of the documents referred to do mention this. The section mainly concerning automated testing would be section 9. We do not want to repeat what is in other documents, just put references. Maybe we should put something about 'just'machine evaluation in the introduction

<Mike_Elledge> yes

eric: i will see if i can add it to the introduction

<Mike_Elledge> utopic

denis: is there a way where we could have a split in approaches (1 person / team)

eric: is in the text, meant for individuals, recommend teams.

denis: needs more emphasis

<kerstin> +1 for dboudreau

amy: like shadi's propose text, add "although user testing ....." from original text

<AmyChen> Like Shadi's proposed text. Was comparing Shadi's text with Eric's original text. Please add sentence "Although user-testing is not a requirement under this Methodology, we strongly recommend that users with disabilities and older users, are involved in the evaluation."

sarah: section 10 conformity: do we need to say more on this subject

eric: i have text, maybe in next editorial draft?

sarah: outside world may want to weigh in at discussion on section 10

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say add "(optional)" to the sub-section titles and to also agree with clarifying the notes in section 10

shadi: add (optional) to heading about review team, section 10 needs more atm about wcag2 conformance

eric: agree

<SarahSwierenga> +1

<ericvelleman> +1

eric: changes by shadi: everyone agrees?

<vivienne> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<dboudreau> +1


<AmyChen> +1

eric: everyone agrees

<Detlev> can't tell that quickly.. never mind

<Detlev> I#ll try

shadi: takes some time before publishing

<kerstin> I'll send either comments or a +1 to the list

<dboudreau> sounds great

eric: discussion on section 7.1,2,3,4,5 through the list

denis: easier to split e-mails so everyone can follow

eric: will start 1 discussion, if needed i will chop different discussion

shadi: this discussion will be on a future draft, not this version

<dboudreau> if possible, one thread by section or sub-section, though discussions will get mixed up ;p

<vivienne> good night all

<Detlev> Bye

eric: next week is thanksgiving: postpone meeting?

<vivienne> Aussies don't do Thanksgiving either

eric: can not join

<Detlev> let's postpone

<Mike_Elledge> Thanks, everyone! Yes, if have meeting, schedule early. We in US will be in a food coma after noon...

<dboudreau> yes, let's

<dboudreau> dec 8th

shadi: Postponing the next meeting to december 8th

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/11/17 18:48:34 $