IRC log of eval on 2012-01-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:42:32 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:42:32 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:42:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:42:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #eval
14:42:36 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
14:42:36 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
14:42:37 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:42:37 [trackbot]
Date: 26 January 2012
14:42:58 [shadi]
chair: Eric
14:43:47 [shadi]
regrets: Kathy
14:44:23 [shadi]
agenda+ Specific discussion on section 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8
14:44:35 [shadi]
agenda+ Specific discussion on section 5.1 Manual and machine evaluation
14:44:56 [shadi]
agenda+ Evaluation section
14:53:46 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
14:53:52 [Zakim]
14:54:29 [MartijnHoutepen]
MartijnHoutepen has joined #eval
14:55:06 [shadi]
zakim, call shadi-617
14:55:06 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; the call is being made
14:55:07 [Zakim]
14:56:56 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
14:56:56 [Zakim]
sorry, MartijnHoutepen, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:57:03 [Zakim]
14:57:16 [vivienne]
zakim, IPcaller is me
14:57:16 [Zakim]
+vivienne; got it
14:57:34 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, who is on the phone
14:57:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', MartijnHoutepen
14:58:45 [Zakim]
14:59:10 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is Kerstin
14:59:10 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
14:59:14 [kerstin]
kerstin has joined #eval
14:59:18 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
14:59:18 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
14:59:36 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
14:59:36 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
14:59:56 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #eval
15:00:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.502.632.aaaa
15:01:09 [shadi]
zakim, aaaa is Elle
15:01:09 [Zakim]
+Elle; got it
15:01:19 [Zakim]
15:01:19 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has joined #eval
15:01:21 [Zakim]
15:01:46 [Elle]
Elle has joined #eval
15:01:56 [Detlev]
unmute me
15:02:02 [Detlev]
mute me
15:02:09 [Detlev]
zakim, mute me
15:02:18 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:02:23 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
15:02:24 [shadi]
scribe: Elle
15:02:34 [Zakim]
sorry, MartijnHoutepen, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:02:49 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see houtepen, Shadi, vivienne (muted), Kerstin (muted), Elle, Mike, Detlev (muted)
15:02:57 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
15:03:00 [Zakim]
15:03:04 [shadi]
zakim, houtepen is MartijnHoutepen
15:03:06 [Zakim]
+MartijnHoutepen; got it
15:03:15 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
15:03:15 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:03:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.301.221.aabb
15:03:44 [shadi]
zakim, aabb is Liz
15:03:44 [Zakim]
+Liz; got it
15:03:59 [shadi]
15:04:35 [liz]
liz has joined #eval
15:04:43 [kerstin]
+1 for voice recognition :-)
15:04:59 [SarahSwierenga]
SarahSwierenga has joined #eval
15:05:08 [vivienne]
no, I can't go
15:06:17 [agarrison]
agarrison has joined #eval
15:06:32 [shadi]
15:06:50 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:06:50 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:06:56 [agarrison]
I'll be a little late joining - maybe another 5 mins
15:07:07 [Elle]
Eric: Discussion online about fact that a lot of text is coming from the UM document, explained in earlier calls
15:07:11 [shadi]
Topic: Welcome
15:07:24 [shadi]
15:07:32 [Elle]
Eric: delivered a document (Unifed Web Evaluation Methodology = UM)
15:08:11 [Elle]
Eric: what happened (three years or so ago) was really valuable, but most of discussion was with WCAG 1.0, terminology is usable, but can we use this for WCAG 2.0?
15:08:18 [Zakim]
15:08:39 [agarrison]
just joined
15:08:52 [shadi]
zakim, ??p35 is agarrison
15:08:52 [Zakim]
+agarrison; got it
15:08:54 [Elle]
Eric: do see text coming from there, but could change completely as a result of this task force group discussion
15:08:59 [shadi]
ack me
15:09:14 [Elle]
Eric: will discuss further with shadi on copyright issues, but not needed for this call
15:10:11 [Elle]
shadi: wasn't aware that there was specific text directly coming from UM, so if the text is specifically taken from UM or structure, we may need a small acknowledgement section, let's follow up separately and see how much of that, but yes, should certainly try to use existing work
15:10:13 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:10:14 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:10:47 [Elle]
Eric: have a read, look for "UM" - will send a link, Alice also sent direct link in the email discussions, see if there's valuable stuff that we might want to use or use for inspiration
15:11:26 [Elle]
Eric: side products, one is on indicators and indicator refinement, discussion about how can you get a random sample that is really a good sample of a website?
15:12:18 [Elle]
Eric: saw a few papers that had links, read them, found another paper that was made inside this cluster that also addresses this, still looking based on discussion last week, When do we stop, how to we find the sample? trying to find scientific data before shutting down that discussion
15:12:33 [agarrison]
15:12:53 [Elle]
Eric: specifically in this tool, assistance-part, there's a possibility to use a tool to get a real random sample, question is, how many pages would be a good random sample? if you know of literature about that, please send a link to use in discussion
15:13:01 [kerstin]
links to you, eric, or to the mailing list?
15:13:06 [Elle]
Eric: trying to close down how many pages is large enough or small enough
15:13:10 [ericvelleman]
15:13:39 [Elle]
allistair: there have been other discussions about sample pages, where are we storing these ideas via email?
15:14:07 [Elle]
Eric: they are stored on the mailing list, problem with putting them in the document is that we didn't really agree about how many pages
15:14:41 [Elle]
allistair: in the end, I said I'd be happy with a smaller sample, but there's no mechanism to know what we're agreeing on if we're storing it in the emails
15:14:50 [Zakim]
15:14:54 [Elle]
allistair: other things that we are deciding on are not getting into the document
15:15:13 [Elle]
allistair: can weekly updates note what we're agreeing on?
15:15:41 [Elle]
Eric: trying to update document following outcome of the teleconferences, but to your point, it should be earlier than what was done recently, try to do this sooner
15:15:50 [shadi]
ack me
15:15:52 [Elle]
allistair: what about putting it into the W3C?
15:16:26 [Elle]
Eric: still very much in an editor draft, tools to see differences in documents (change logs), but could increase administration
15:17:12 [Elle]
shadi: not entirely sure that subversion is very easy for everyone to use, what you're talking about from HTML5 group has three co-chairs, don't think it's fully automatically generated, but we can look at more stuff to support
15:17:40 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:17:40 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:17:40 [Elle]
shadi: would really suggest that you point out things that have been dropped or not yet integrated, but with approximately 80 emails a week, it takes time to integrate these comments into the document
15:17:55 [Elle]
Eric: if there's something that wasn't put in the document, please just add it to the list and I'll add it
15:18:19 [agarrison]
sounds good
15:18:20 [Elle]
Eric: try to put all the outcome of these discussions into the document, if there's something missing, please let me know what I missed
15:18:35 [ericvelleman]
15:18:44 [agarrison]
15:18:53 [shadi]
zakim, take up next
15:18:53 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Specific discussion on section 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8" taken up [from shadi]
15:19:23 [shadi]
regrets+ Vincent
15:19:24 [Elle]
Eric: did make some changes that we discussed in the last call, short discussion (side discussion) that urged me to make a change, dropped the barrier section and added a section in the sample section
15:20:22 [Elle]
Eric: added a section (4.3) in the sampling of pages called "stop criteria" so that is new and it came out of the discussion we had in the past meetings, dropping barrier recognition (5.4) - still there, but noted as we will drop this
15:20:42 [Elle]
Eric: in the discussion, we said that "barrier recognition" was not the right terminology, and we didn't want to make a choice about what was more/less important as a barrier
15:21:07 [Elle]
Eric: added the idea that we could stop evaluating more pages, so created temporary title "Stop Criteria" with a really short description
15:21:27 [Elle]
Eric: so if you're sampling pages, core sample (homepage, search page, etc), the task oriented sample, and the random sample
15:21:33 [agarrison]
15:21:39 [Elle]
Eric: for the random sample, the question is how many pages would be in the random sample to cover the website as a whole
15:21:57 [Elle]
Eric: introduced the term "stop criteria" here, propose a discussion (not on this call) but note that it's totally new in the document
15:21:57 [ericvelleman]
15:22:10 [shadi]
ack ag
15:22:18 [Elle]
allistair: when did we actually decided on these sampling things?
15:22:26 [Elle]
allistair: did we actually decide and finalize that?
15:22:46 [Elle]
allistair: stop criteria seems the same as barrier criteria, are we carrying that over from the previous document or do we actually need it?
15:22:57 [Elle]
Eric: as far as sampling is concerned, we agreed on 3 forms (core, task, and random)
15:23:06 [Elle]
Eric: put text there for the discussion
15:23:11 [shadi]
ack me
15:23:17 [kerstin]
15:23:17 [Elle]
allistair: can't remember sending agreement, pretty much copied from the UM
15:23:26 [Elle]
Eric: yes, from UM with changes to fit WCAG 2, but still need discussion
15:23:31 [Elle]
allistair: very important area
15:23:36 [kerstin]
zakim, unmute me
15:23:37 [Zakim]
Kerstin should no longer be muted
15:24:05 [Elle]
Eric: closed for part, start of scope, entering flesh into the document based on what people responded, the direction put in, but not definitive text in any way
15:24:12 [agarrison]
15:24:14 [ericvelleman]
15:24:44 [Elle]
shadi: from a process perspective, if there is text coming from UM, we have to acknowledge that and add a small acknowledgement that those sections are from UM
15:25:14 [kerstin]
zakim, unmute me
15:25:14 [Zakim]
Kerstin was not muted, kerstin
15:25:22 [Elle]
shadi: regarding a group resolution, this is an editor draft at this stage, quite normal for things to appear as new, changed in an ad-hoc basis, but when we publish a working draft there will be an opportunity for the group to approve, small W3C process
15:25:34 [Elle]
shadi: there won't be a formal publication without group agreement
15:25:36 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:25:36 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:26:19 [kerstin]
15:26:23 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:26:23 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:26:25 [Detlev]
15:26:25 [ericvelleman]
15:26:28 [Elle]
shadi: having it in there doesn't imply approval, just there for everyone to discuss
15:26:32 [Detlev]
ack me
15:27:23 [Detlev]
Conformance is defined only for Web pages. However, a conformance claim may be made to cover one page, a series of pages, or multiple related Web pages.
15:27:25 [Elle]
Detlev: touching on sampling, wondered whether the methodology would only cover scenarios where you want to evaluate a whole website or part of a website, defining core resources, random pages would apply, reading the WCAG text it seems that there's also the option to evaluate one single page
15:27:45 [ericvelleman]
15:27:49 [Elle]
Detlev: would our methodology include that, or conditional decision?
15:28:05 [Elle]
Detlev: conformance claim and include one URL, for example
15:28:30 [vivienne]
15:28:39 [ericvelleman]
15:28:45 [Elle]
Eric: we have the methodology for a full website, but discussion about what is a full website (where it starts and ends) still need more discussion on it, so that two or more people who evaluate the same website and have the same result
15:28:49 [Tim]
Tim has joined #eval
15:29:11 [Elle]
Detlev: can you make a conformance claim for a single web page? would that be something that the methodology could support or would it be ruled out?
15:29:26 [Elle]
Eric: right now, it's ruled out, complete website
15:29:29 [ericvelleman]
15:29:31 [vivienne]
ack me
15:30:04 [Elle]
Vivienne: when talking about websites, does that encompass web applications as well? we do things that are hosted by a company and maybe made available to specific members of the public or kept for in house applications
15:30:21 [kerstin]
15:30:27 [Elle]
Vivienne: know that WCAG covers intranet, with our methodology, will that cover web applications?
15:30:53 [Detlev]
please send link to the list, Vivienne!
15:30:57 [Elle]
Vivienne: 10% of websites need to be evaluated, will we be including that?
15:30:57 [shadi]
15:31:04 [Elle]
Eric: can you send a link?
15:31:10 [ericvelleman]
15:31:13 [kerstin]
zakim, unmute me
15:31:13 [Zakim]
Kerstin should no longer be muted
15:31:16 [shadi]
[[Website - A coherent collection of one or more related web pages that together provide common use or functionality. It includes static web pages, dynamically generated web pages, and web applications.]]
15:31:17 [vivienne]
okay guys, I'll send it to the list
15:31:19 [Elle]
Eric: regarding web applications, specifies dynamic and static applications, so it's covered, yes
15:31:39 [Elle]
Kerstin: if we have a one-pager, will it be possible to evaluate the single page with our methodology?
15:31:45 [shadi]
15:31:46 [Elle]
Eric: website would only have one page?
15:31:49 [Elle]
Kerstin: yes
15:31:51 [shadi]
q- k
15:32:21 [Zakim]
15:32:28 [Elle]
Eric: I think yes, but not quite sure, don't see a lot of websites with only one page, but we do have language in the sampling with "if available" so if not available, then the website is only one page, then that'd be the full website
15:32:33 [ericvelleman]
15:32:39 [shadi]
ack me
15:32:39 [Elle]
Kerstin: I think it would be a good solution
15:33:02 [kerstin]
zakim, unmute me
15:33:02 [Zakim]
Kerstin was not muted, kerstin
15:33:10 [Elle]
shadi: I think a one-page or even small 5 page site is really not the challenge, since chances are your sample will cover all the requirements if you just select 5 pages (you'd meet the requirements of the sampling)
15:33:49 [Detlev]
ack me
15:33:53 [Elle]
shadi: if I understand Detlev correctly, if you have a website and you only choose a sub-section (like a subdomain or a specific part that belongs to a department), it might be useful to be able to say "this part of a website is accessible" but potential for misuse, but might be interesting
15:34:05 [agarrison]
15:34:20 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:34:20 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:34:23 [Elle]
Detlev: that's what I was talking about, if you want to look at one particular page or aspect, would it be okay to be able to say "this page conforms" but the rest do not, would the methodology support that?
15:34:42 [Elle]
shadi: if it's one page, why not use WCAG? what does the methodology provide for added value?
15:34:48 [Elle]
Detlev: maybe not
15:35:21 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:35:21 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:35:26 [Elle]
Eric: maybe not a page, but a technology perhaps (ex. forms), some people request for testing according to specific types of technology, need to look at the text to see if this is possible
15:35:48 [Elle]
Eric: 3.8 is specifically on possibility to divide the evaluation into multiple evaluations
15:36:00 [ericvelleman]
15:36:02 [Elle]
Eric: this is a question we'd have to answer, will that be okay or not
15:36:20 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:36:20 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:36:23 [agarrison]
The methodology should be able to verify a conformance claim - which could be a single page, sub domain or whole website.
15:36:27 [Elle]
allistair: should be the case that the methodology can verify that it's a conformance claim to be made, whether single page or website, can see that as quite useful
15:37:09 [Detlev]
15:37:17 [Elle]
allistair: uses the conformance claim as a kind of scope, we would be able to say that had done what they said they'd done, would support WCAG 2 in a much better way
15:37:24 [Elle]
Eric: what about a smaller amount of pages?
15:37:45 [Elle]
allistair: conformance claim is design to support single or multiple pages, using this as a scoping document, reproducable for other people to use
15:37:54 [Elle]
Eric: then you go away from a full website
15:38:04 [Elle]
allistair: you could do either, and you could do it in any case
15:38:14 [Detlev]
15:38:19 [vivienne]
15:38:20 [Elle]
Eric: methodology to support one-page evaluation or a full website evaluation?
15:38:23 [ericvelleman]
15:38:36 [Elle]
allistair: do you want make a conformance claim for a single web page or a full website?
15:38:52 [Tim]
ATAG also has conformance claim info (may be relevant to our scoping discussion)
15:39:02 [Elle]
allistair: could be quite useful, could be passed around, and you can specifiy the URLs, so if you update your website, you only need to test the new content, might optimize the process
15:39:03 [Tim]
15:39:19 [Elle]
Eric: so the conformance claim would not be for the full website, but only the sample?
15:39:25 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:39:25 [Zakim]
Shadi was already muted, shadi
15:39:32 [ericvelleman]
15:39:35 [Detlev]
ack me
15:39:35 [Elle]
allistair: no, whatever the claim is is the scope, defines it, and then you could take a sample out of that
15:40:03 [Elle]
Detlev: I agree fully with allistair, we increasingly have a situation with websites combined from several bits and pieces, different sources, it's much better to be able to make a specific conformance claim about something
15:40:21 [ericvelleman]
15:40:48 [agarrison]
For clarity the WCAG 2.0 conformance claim is used as the scope, and the sample is taken from that
15:40:49 [Elle]
Detlev: rather than ruling out a full conformance because you can't encompass all of it, statement needs to be clearly tied to the pages tested, don't want to lead people to think it's the full website that conforms, to specify what's included and what's excluded
15:40:52 [vivienne]
ack me
15:41:00 [Elle]
Eric: a really different approach to scope than what we have currently
15:41:13 [agarrison]
15:41:14 [ericvelleman]
15:41:15 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:41:15 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:41:18 [vivienne]
15:41:21 [shadi]
15:41:27 [vivienne]
15:41:50 [Detlev]
15:42:00 [vivienne]
ack me
15:42:02 [Elle]
Eric: the conformance claim decides what the scope is? so we don't first state scope and then choose a sample, but the conformance statement of claim defines what the scope is, not necessarily a full website review
15:42:03 [ericvelleman]
15:42:08 [vivienne]
15:42:09 [kerstin]
don't understand
15:42:20 [Elle]
allistair: that seems to be the intention behind WCAG 2.0
15:42:57 [Elle]
+1 I agree because of how large applications and corporate websites are created (multiple content providers) - I think you should have both options, parallel paths
15:43:31 [Elle]
Vivienne: there's already guidelines about how to evaluate and put conformance claims on specific pages in WCAG, thought we'd ruled that out and our methodology would encompass full websites
15:44:02 [shadi]
15:44:08 [Elle]
Eric: the idea is now that you'd make a conformance claim based on choice, which would define scope, but you'd only be doing part of our methodology
15:44:16 [Mike_Elledge]
15:44:16 [shadi]
ack me
15:44:22 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:44:23 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:44:26 [shadi]
q- de
15:44:32 [shadi]
q- vi
15:45:20 [Elle]
shadi: not absolutely sure that it's really that far away from what we've been discussing, depends on what the big scope is, take a website with many applications or subdomains or parts, and even if you wanted to evaluate a subpart (ex. library section), you still have to do quite a bit of sampling and work to determine even the scope
15:45:50 [agarrison]
A website owner makes a conformance claim for their website - surely they must be able to use the evaluation method we are producing to see if this conformance claim is verifiable
15:46:11 [Elle]
shadi: so you may not be doing the entire site, but still fairly large set of pages/resources that you need to put in sampling strategy to make a claim about that subsection, so for individual pages, if you can count the pages you're evaluating, this methodology doesn't make sense (not the point that we're doing), but we need to be careful not to exclude important usage
15:46:33 [Elle]
shadi: (ex. purchase a new application for your company site) need a way to verify conformance and not the entire site
15:46:44 [Elle]
Eric: but then it's not a full website evaluation anymore
15:46:53 [Detlev]
15:47:05 [Elle]
shadi: depends on what the conformance claim is for, if I want to make a claim about the entire website, then the selection/sampling would have to be for the entire website
15:47:30 [Detlev]
15:47:33 [Elle]
shadi: can't do a sampling of subsection and say it applies to the entire website, but the sampling used would apply only to the subsection
15:47:56 [Elle]
Eric: does make things much easier, we can drop a lot of areas about scope, since scope would be dependent on the conformance claim
15:48:14 [Elle]
allistair: if it's a broad scope, you still need to be able to sample
15:48:45 [Elle]
Eric: the scope section can be replaced by much shorter text saying it's dependent on conformance claim, but also drop the idea of a full website evaluation
15:48:55 [Detlev]
Can we go back to working wit hthe queue?
15:48:59 [MartijnHoutepen]
15:49:15 [Elle]
15:49:34 [agarrison]
15:49:39 [Elle]
Eric: this isn't a full website evaluation then, are we still planning the same thing
15:49:40 [ericvelleman]
15:50:01 [kerstin]
+1 am confused also
15:50:22 [agarrison]
15:50:36 [Detlev]
15:50:38 [Elle]
shadi: approach is in there, scope section would not be less useful, contextualized and have it either open-ended (entire website or specific subsection)
15:50:56 [Elle]
Eric: not if you say that the conformance claim is the scope
15:51:12 [agarrison]
15:51:19 [Elle]
Eric: could leave it there, but if we take this approach, we're not talking about full websites anymore, so a lot of these may not be relevant
15:51:40 [Elle]
shadi: WCAG statement of partial conformance is different than what we're talking about here
15:52:24 [Detlev]
Thanks Shadi, that'S what I was getting at!
15:52:48 [Elle]
shadi: if I specify the web pages, still have to use the steps, the samples, etc that define scoping, not okay to say "take pages 1,2,3 and drop 4" and arbitrarily say that it conforms
15:53:07 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:53:07 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:53:14 [Elle]
shadi: this could apply on smaller parts of a site
15:53:16 [shadi]
ack mike
15:53:20 [agarrison]
15:53:44 [Elle]
Mike: maybe part of the problem is how conformance is defined in WCAG 2.0 (lowest common denominator method)
15:54:03 [Elle]
Mike: can't claim a conformance level of entire site unless you've looked at the entire site
15:54:21 [shadi]
regrets+ Emmanuelle
15:54:35 [Elle]
Mike: that doesn't exclude sampling, don't know that we'd be in conflict if we said that a portion of the site is in conformance, maybe we say it meets the WCAG 2.0 AA criteria
15:54:57 [Elle]
Eric: so you could split the website into different parts (one part WCAG AA, another part WCAG A)
15:55:19 [Detlev]
15:55:20 [agarrison]
15:55:24 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:55:27 [kerstin]
15:55:37 [Elle]
Mike: if we don't use the word "conformance" we could slide by that issue of whether the site conforms or not, but don't think you can say conformance unless you look at the entire site
15:55:48 [shadi]
ack ma
15:55:53 [Elle]
Martin: we'd never have a conformance claim on a large site then, which is why we're looking at sampling
15:56:16 [Elle]
Martin: if we start splitting up into smaller sections, then the claim for a website will be very confusing for everyone who reads it
15:56:29 [ericvelleman]
15:56:30 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
15:56:30 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
15:56:31 [shadi]
ack elle
15:57:11 [agarrison]
15:57:24 [agarrison]
This exact issue was raised in 5 dec
15:57:28 [Detlev]
15:57:53 [shadi]
+1 to Elle
15:58:34 [ericvelleman]
15:58:52 [kerstin]
15:59:08 [shadi]
zakim, close queue
15:59:08 [Zakim]
ok, shadi, the speaker queue is closed
15:59:50 [Elle]
allistair: this has been raised on Dec 5th about this exact issue, how many people have read the conformance claims of WCAG 2? you can say your entire website is AA compliant and use your own methodology to back it up, but if we can't allow our methodology to support that, it'll be silly
16:00:43 [shadi]
16:00:46 [ericvelleman]
16:00:46 [agarrison]
16:00:51 [Detlev]
good stuff to discuss in the next call!
16:00:53 [Elle]
allistair: if we limit our methodology to full websites, we're telling people what they can use that for and not what they need it for, what's the benefit, is there a seal for full website conformance?
16:01:02 [shadi]
ack ag
16:01:28 [Elle]
Mike: on conformance page, thought it had to do with entire site, but really has to do with a single page
16:02:32 [Elle]
Eric: to your earlier comment, allistair, WCAG 2 conformance is at a page level, but our methodology is for full websites
16:02:56 [Elle]
allistair: what's the benefit of that for full websites? why would I want to pay you money to tell me if my entire website is compliant in terms of you giving me a conformance claim?
16:03:31 [vivienne]
16:03:34 [kerstin]
16:03:49 [Elle]
Eric: you see a lot of evaluations of websites, can imagine that someone wants a conformance claim on a site, people with disabilities would like to know if someone's making that claim, it's for the full website
16:04:09 [Elle]
allistair: conformance claim is what you will give out at the end of your methodology
16:04:32 [kerstin]
16:04:34 [Elle]
allistair: what about adding new content after a full website evaluation, then I have to do the full website again?
16:05:06 [Elle]
Eric: you don't need a full methodology to choose samples, scopes, and you want to have a conformance claim for one page
16:05:06 [vivienne]
In Australia, government departments need to be able to state what level their website conforms to. We need a full website evaluation.
16:05:38 [Elle]
Eric: the question is, do we want people to give a conformance claim for a 1,000,000 pages, or do we want people to use the methodology to make a conformance claim for a full website?
16:06:20 [Elle]
allistair: I'd like a website only to define what they're claiming conformance for, and to say whether or not those pages do what they say with regards to conformance
16:06:39 [Elle]
allistair: I'd like to validate conformance claims and use the methodology to support WCAG 2
16:07:03 [shadi]
ack me
16:07:03 [Elle]
Eric: I would like to do the full website and not limit it to just whatever a website owner claims conformance over
16:07:15 [Elle]
shadi: call has to be closed now
16:07:22 [Mike_Elledge]
Can we say "Conformance subject to the scope of the review"?
16:07:37 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, unmute me
16:07:41 [Elle]
Eric: will put this topic on agenda for next meeting
16:08:08 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should no longer be muted
16:08:14 [Elle]
Eric: missed at least 3 items on the agenda, but this seems to be a really important thing to talk about, agenda for list this week and next meeting
16:08:22 [kerstin]
16:08:23 [Detlev]
16:08:23 [vivienne]
thanks, see you next week
16:08:23 [Elle]
Eric: thanks for joining and giving opinions
16:08:23 [SarahSwierenga]
16:08:25 [MartijnHoutepen]
MartijnHoutepen has left #eval
16:08:26 [Elle]
bye! :)
16:08:27 [vivienne]
vivienne has left #eval
16:08:32 [kerstin]
16:08:36 [Zakim]
16:08:38 [Zakim]
16:08:39 [Zakim]
16:08:44 [Zakim]
16:08:46 [Zakim]
16:08:47 [Zakim]
16:08:52 [Zakim]
16:08:54 [Zakim]
16:08:56 [Zakim]
16:08:58 [Zakim]
16:08:59 [Zakim]
16:09:01 [Zakim]
16:09:04 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
16:09:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shadi, vivienne, Kerstin, +1.502.632.aaaa, Elle, Mike, Detlev, ericvelleman, MartijnHoutepen, +1.301.221.aabb, Liz, agarrison, Sarah, Tim_Boland
16:09:17 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has left #eval
16:21:50 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
16:21:50 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:21:50 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:21:53 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:21:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:21:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:21:54 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items