IRC log of eval on 2012-02-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
14:56:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-eval-irc
14:56:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:56:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
14:56:53 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
14:56:54 [trackbot]
Date: 16 February 2012
14:57:13 [shadi]
chair: Eric
14:57:36 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
14:57:42 [Zakim]
+Shadi
14:57:43 [Kathy]
Kathy has joined #eval
14:57:59 [Liz]
Liz has joined #eval
14:58:13 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has joined #eval
14:58:29 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #eval
14:58:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.227.aaaa
14:58:53 [shadi]
regrets: Denis, Richard
14:59:12 [Zakim]
+Liz
14:59:21 [shadi]
zakim, aaaa is Katie
14:59:21 [Zakim]
+Katie; got it
14:59:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.502.632.aabb
14:59:50 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Sarah_Swierenga has joined #eval
14:59:56 [Zakim]
+Detlev
15:00:12 [shadi]
zakim, aabb is Elle
15:00:12 [Zakim]
+Elle; got it
15:00:16 [Zakim]
+Kathy
15:00:28 [Zakim]
+Don
15:00:35 [Zakim]
+Eric
15:00:40 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:41 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:00:50 [Zakim]
+Sarah
15:02:08 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shadi, Katie, Liz, Elle, Detlev (muted), Kathy, Don, Eric, Sarah
15:03:38 [Elle]
Elle has joined #eval
15:03:39 [shadi]
scribe: Sarah
15:03:44 [shadi]
scribenick: Sarah_Swierenga
15:03:57 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:03:57 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
15:04:07 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/minutes.html
15:04:08 [kerstin]
kerstin has joined #eval
15:04:17 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:04:20 [agarrison]
agarrison has joined #eval
15:04:24 [vivienne]
zakim, ipcaller is me
15:04:24 [Zakim]
+vivienne; got it
15:05:00 [kerstin]
123mogya
15:05:12 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:05:12 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:05:21 [shadi]
s/123mogya/
15:05:25 [agarrison]
I'm in another call for 5 mins
15:06:16 [shadi]
Topic: CSUN
15:06:30 [Sarah_Swierenga]
csun plans - nothing formal has been confirmed
15:06:38 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:07:01 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is Kerstin
15:07:01 [Zakim]
+Kerstin; got it
15:07:25 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:07:25 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:07:41 [Sarah_Swierenga]
thurs afternoon at 4:20 - discussion of this work at csun
15:07:59 [Kathy]
zakim, unmute me
15:07:59 [Zakim]
Kathy should no longer be muted
15:08:34 [Sarah_Swierenga]
kathy will start an email identifying who is presenting and when.
15:08:39 [vivienne]
ack me
15:08:42 [vivienne]
q+
15:09:41 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
15:10:11 [Zakim]
+Mike
15:10:13 [shadi]
ack viv
15:10:50 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:10:57 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:10:57 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:11:01 [shadi]
zakim, Alistair
15:11:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'Alistair', shadi
15:11:09 [shadi]
zakim, ipcaller is Alistair
15:11:09 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
15:11:18 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:11:18 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:11:32 [shadi]
Topic: Relationship between WAI-ACT and Eval TF
15:11:36 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:11:36 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
15:11:40 [shadi]
ack me
15:12:00 [shadi]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ACT/
15:12:46 [Sarah_Swierenga]
this task force is partially funded and supported through WAI-ACT.
15:12:59 [Tim]
Tim has joined #eval
15:13:17 [Sarah_Swierenga]
this is the fifth or so in a series of projects set up like this...a fairly common approach
15:13:50 [Sarah_Swierenga]
typically there are invited experts, but the funding will mostly be under the W3C process
15:14:22 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:15:14 [Sarah_Swierenga]
eric will provide more info if requested, and info is available at the link just above in this thread.
15:15:37 [Sarah_Swierenga]
sorry shadi has the additional info
15:15:48 [Sarah_Swierenga]
agenda point 3
15:16:17 [shadi]
Topic: Section 5
15:16:23 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:16:23 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:17:31 [Sarah_Swierenga]
should the end report include all of the techniques or just the results?
15:17:56 [shadi]
ack me
15:18:23 [Detlev]
Has there been a recent version of the Methodology? If so, can you post the URL?
15:18:36 [Detlev]
ok
15:18:39 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:18:39 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:18:49 [ericvelleman]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120209.html
15:18:54 [Detlev]
cheers
15:19:46 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: we don't want to rewrite wcag techniques, but what do we want here?
15:21:07 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
15:21:30 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: Do we want to check every page for every element, technique, component?
15:21:43 [kerstin]
Detlev's Mail here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Feb/0055.html
15:22:10 [Mike_Elledge]
q+
15:22:19 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: 4.2 clarifies this. Detlev proposes not to select a particular order
15:22:30 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:22:49 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: Once we have identified a problem, we don't need to identify it again on other pages
15:22:51 [shadi]
q+
15:22:56 [shadi]
ack mike
15:23:07 [Detlev]
Here#s my proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Feb/0055.html
15:23:17 [Kathy]
q+
15:23:31 [kerstin]
q+
15:23:36 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Mike: would change wording to make it clear that if people are evaluating on an 'exception' basis, we make sure people know it is different."targeted" doesn't seem to get at that.
15:23:50 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:23:55 [shadi]
ack me
15:25:00 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Shadi: depends on the aim of the evaluation. If just yes/no, then it's enough to identify an error on one page and then not address it again. However, if we want a more quantitative approach we would indicate how prevalent the issue was.
15:25:11 [Elle]
*q
15:25:41 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Shadi: If we want to talk about how close to compliant a page is, then we'll need more details in addition to the yes/no.
15:25:48 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:25:48 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:25:57 [shadi]
q+ Elle
15:25:58 [Kathy]
ack me
15:27:04 [kerstin]
zakim, unmute me
15:27:04 [Zakim]
Kerstin should no longer be muted
15:27:12 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Kathy: Agrees with Shadi. We need to decide yes/no, but also need to decide on frequency, e.g., one missing alt text vs missing alt text throughout the site. When working with development teams, it's important to identify where the errors are occuring.
15:27:26 [vivienne]
q+
15:27:34 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:27:34 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
15:27:40 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:27:40 [shadi]
ack ker
15:27:48 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: Earlier discussion - we want to know where errors are occurring.
15:28:13 [shadi]
q+ to say could have both approaches in the document
15:28:41 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Kerstin: On huge pages, evaluators should look for more than a few errors. Finding one failure and then moving on to another page isn't enough.
15:29:06 [Kathy]
q+
15:29:13 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Kerstin: Doesn't see why we should have to identify where every error occurs, e.g., navigation bars
15:29:42 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:29:42 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:30:06 [shadi]
ack elle
15:30:09 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:30:10 [Mike_Elledge]
In that instance we just say "All pages--Logo does not have alt text."
15:30:13 [vivienne]
ack me
15:30:16 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: Believes we have agreement here. We can say in the report that evaluator should give several examples and indicate that this problem may occur elsewhere on the site.
15:30:24 [vivienne]
q+
15:31:29 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Elle: Totally agrees, from a development team standpoint, errors should be specifically identified. However, they have an associated document specifying the location and extent of errors. Global vs. regional elements in the test cases.
15:31:32 [Mike_Elledge]
+1
15:31:59 [kerstin]
+1
15:32:05 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Elle: Global and regional elements may also be referred to as "common" elements.
15:32:23 [shadi]
ack viv
15:32:57 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Vivienne: "Site wide issues" is another term for items that occur on a number of pages.
15:33:45 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Vivienne: Usually points out where the problems are, but also how to correct the issues. Different levels of evaluation and recommendations.
15:34:12 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: This is important for audits and reporting.
15:34:51 [kerstin]
q+
15:34:58 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: ISO testing schemes include what is wrong, but also what the repair possibilties would be.
15:35:43 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:35:43 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:35:44 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Vivienne: Pointing to best practices is helpful. As practitioners we need to be proactive about recommendations.
15:35:55 [vivienne]
ack me
15:36:08 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: Maybe this should go into the reporting section, rather than section 5.
15:36:13 [Elle]
Vivienne, I agree totally, we request remediation support with all our audits (saves time) and I evaluate against our own corporate best practice
15:36:53 [shadi]
ack me
15:36:55 [Zakim]
shadi, you wanted to say could have both approaches in the document
15:36:55 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:36:56 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:36:57 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Vivienne: Maybe this should also be included in scope. For example, we are going line by line or highlighting various items on each page.
15:37:52 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Shadi: Likes the concept of identifying the global elements that would only be evaluated once. The target of the evaluation should be clear from the beginning and in the reporting section.
15:38:06 [Detlev]
q+
15:39:11 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
15:39:11 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
15:39:13 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Shadi: Options 1) yes/no - don't evaluate for that again if found on one page; 2) yes/no, plus more info about the nature of the error on more pages; and 3) adding recommendations for repair. We could describe all three in this document.
15:39:16 [Kathy]
ack me
15:40:33 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Kathy: Working with clients has similar experiences to Vivienne. Have common elements and issues, and then refers back to the original place where the issue was identied. That way the info is associated with each page. Some common issues are applicable to a specific set of pages, but not the whole site.
15:41:44 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Kathy: Reporting options, those usually depend on the level of accessbility expertise within the development team. Repairs might not be needed, as long as the issues are identified, if the team knows how to address the issues.
15:42:01 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: It should be clear from the start what level of evaluation is needed.
15:42:17 [kerstin]
zakim, unmute me
15:42:17 [Zakim]
Kerstin should no longer be muted
15:42:17 [Elle]
Kathy, great point
15:42:18 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Kathy: Yes, this could save costs over time.
15:42:26 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:42:26 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
15:42:28 [shadi]
ack ker
15:43:19 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Kerstin: Agrees with Shadi and Kathy's add-ons. We should write use cases for the three options, for comparative testing purposes.
15:43:23 [Detlev]
ack me
15:43:27 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:43:48 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:43:48 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:44:24 [kerstin]
q+
15:45:44 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Detlev: Clarification of draft text - when issue is found multiple times, then we should have a place to note it, but we still need to make sure the page does or does not have that problem. Each page should be checked for everything to make sure it does/does not have that problem. For example, language element should be checked on every page, rather than assuming that the CSS would have that for every page.
15:45:45 [kerstin]
zakim, umute me
15:45:45 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'umute me', kerstin
15:45:56 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:45:56 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
15:45:59 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:46:11 [kerstin]
i write in a mail
15:46:28 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:46:28 [Zakim]
Kerstin was already muted, kerstin
15:46:32 [shadi]
ack ker
15:46:54 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:46:54 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:47:26 [vivienne]
q+
15:47:26 [Elle]
*q
15:47:28 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: With suggesting repairs, it could be more than the evaluator to handle...might be many ways to repair a site, and one repair could cause a problem somewhere else.
15:47:48 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: We could just point to the W3C website where the problem is described.
15:47:49 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:47:56 [vivienne]
zakim ack me
15:48:02 [Elle]
+q
15:48:03 [vivienne]
ack me
15:48:57 [kerstin]
q+
15:49:11 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Vivienne: Don't have to suggest a repair, unless you know what it would be. But, best practices should be included from W3C. We shouldn't always be expected to be experts in development.
15:49:24 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:49:24 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:49:52 [Kathy]
q+
15:50:00 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:50:23 [agarrison]
I would be more comfortable to point them back to WCAG 2.0 Techniques, rather than suggest repairs.
15:51:05 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Elle: If a company site owner requests recommended repairs, the accessibility expert should set the expectation about the level of recommended repairs. Has had experience with one repair causing another problem.
15:51:44 [kerstin]
ack me
15:51:49 [Kathy]
ack me
15:51:52 [Elle]
mute me
15:51:53 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: Recommendations are usually expected, but pointing to W3C is good.
15:51:55 [Elle]
-q
15:52:19 [kerstin]
q+
15:52:22 [Elle]
excellent point, Kathy
15:52:35 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
15:53:06 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:53:52 [Elle]
for what it's worth, our company depends on the development support found in remediation guidance with audits (makes a cheaper remediation project in the end as compared to teaching devs on the job)
15:54:39 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Kathy: Often gives suggestions for repair, but Kathy has a development background. Since there's more than one way to fix a problem, suggestions are given in that context. Works with developers to come up with the best solution. Accessibilty experts might not have an answer, but they can reinterate what needs to be done to address the problem, but not the specific code to fix it.
15:55:00 [Kathy]
zakim, mute me
15:55:01 [Zakim]
Kathy should now be muted
15:55:45 [vivienne]
ack me
15:55:49 [vivienne]
q+
15:55:50 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: Evaluation section - do we want to say that people need to go into the depths of the techniques or refer them to W3C?
15:55:55 [Detlev]
q+
15:55:58 [shadi]
ack viv
15:56:05 [shadi]
ack ker
15:56:13 [kerstin]
zakim, mute me
15:56:13 [Zakim]
Kerstin should now be muted
15:56:15 [Elle]
agree with kerstin
15:56:44 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:56:53 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Vivienne: Recommends being as specific as possible. Don't assume that people will know how to use the WCAG docs, althought it is much more work for the evaluator.
15:57:21 [Detlev]
ack me
15:57:23 [vivienne]
zakim, mute me
15:57:23 [Zakim]
vivienne should now be muted
15:57:26 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Vivienne: Example, titles vs labels - evaluator needs to identify sufficient techniques
15:57:49 [shadi]
q+ to say we should include guidance on how to *use* the techniques
15:58:54 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Detlev: Even though sufficient techniques is the best, it may not be practical. These can't be checkpoints. Evaluator would ask whether all images have alternative text, but to report every technique would be too burdonsome.
15:59:09 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Eric: Will work with Detlev's draft into the next version.
15:59:09 [shadi]
ack me
15:59:11 [Zakim]
shadi, you wanted to say we should include guidance on how to *use* the techniques
15:59:13 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
15:59:14 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
16:00:19 [agarrison]
For replicable results, we do need to all be checking the same thing - the easiest way to achieve this might be to base things on sufficient techniques and failure conditions.
16:00:34 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Shadi: When indicating pass/fail, but this methodology should guide the user about what the problem is from an accessibilty standpoint and apply to the WCAG2 technique to fix it.
16:00:34 [Elle]
agreed, Allistair
16:00:54 [vivienne]
unmute me
16:01:18 [Detlev]
bye
16:01:22 [Kathy]
bye
16:01:24 [Zakim]
-Katie
16:01:25 [Sarah_Swierenga]
Sarah: Have a good week. End scribing.
16:01:25 [vivienne]
bye
16:01:25 [kerstin]
bye
16:01:26 [Zakim]
-Kathy
16:01:27 [Elle]
bye :)
16:01:29 [Zakim]
-Elle
16:01:30 [Zakim]
-Alistair
16:01:30 [vivienne]
-vivienne
16:01:33 [Detlev]
-Detelv
16:01:35 [vivienne]
vivienne has left #eval
16:01:36 [Zakim]
-Don
16:01:38 [Zakim]
-Shadi
16:01:42 [Zakim]
-Sarah
16:01:45 [Mike_Elledge]
bye
16:01:50 [Sarah_Swierenga]
bye
16:01:50 [Zakim]
-vivienne
16:02:04 [Zakim]
-Eric
16:02:31 [Zakim]
-Mike
16:02:37 [Zakim]
-Kerstin
16:02:49 [Zakim]
-Liz
16:04:11 [Zakim]
-Detlev
16:04:14 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended
16:04:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were Shadi, +1.703.227.aaaa, Liz, Katie, +1.502.632.aabb, Detlev, Elle, Kathy, Don, Eric, Sarah, vivienne, Kerstin, Mike, Alistair, Tim_Boland
16:37:30 [shadi]
rrsagent, end meeting
16:37:30 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'end meeting', shadi. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:37:49 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
16:37:49 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:37:49 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:37:57 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:37:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-eval-minutes.html trackbot
16:37:58 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:37:58 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items