WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

24 May 2012


See also: IRC log


Shadi, Don, Kathy, Vivienne, Martijn, Katie, Liz, Detlev, Mike, Peter, Eric, Moe, Sarah, Aurelien, Tim, Kerstin (via IRC)
Richard, Kostas, Samuel, Alistair


Comments received


EV: compiled comments and also link to open comments from pre-publication
... will need to resolve each
... only 7 commenters but many comments

<vivienne> yes, it's easy to follow - thanks Eric

<kerstin> sorry, need some time. skype-issues

<Kathy> yes

<vivienne> +1

<Detlev> sure

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<MoeKraft> +1

<Ryladog> =1

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

[Comment #20]


EV: maybe add a short text explaining the benefits for these audiences

KHS: maybe keep them as bullet to keep size small
... maybe parenthesis but keep it concise

VC: very brief explanation
... maybe explaining that it would help cost assessment
... give a few very easy arguments

<ericvelleman> 1?

[[who need a standardized approach for evaluation]]

<Ryladog> +1 with what Shadi is saying

<Mike_Elledge> +1 also

SAZ: think enough what we have now
... not sure we should spend too much time on explaining rationale

KW: in 1.3 we also have background reading
... could add more links there, for example the WAI business case
... like how short and readable the section is

PK: don't feel too strongly
... hear the concerns, not very important

EV: like the background reading

<vivienne> I like Kathy's idea also

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

EV: will try to address without adding too much text

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Ryladog> +1

EV: agree?

<Detlev> does it belong there, really?

[no disagreement voiced]

<Sarah_Swierenga> we could add the business case link under the accessible web design section, so we don't need to add a new section there.

[Comment #21]

EV: need to know everything to identify Ancillary Functionality

PK: we use the term but don't define it
... need to define the term

EV: can't find it in the current version

<Mike_Elledge> Nope, not unless it's in the text

<Sarah_Swierenga> -1

<Mike_Elledge> Didn't find it in latest doc

DF: often important term
... like the "like button" on facebook or such

VC: think we replaced the term at some point
... but need to define it if it is there

PK: as a concept may be useful to think about the term
... but doesn't make sense if we don't use the term

[Comment #22]

<aurelien_levy> i agree

SAZ: may be useful if available to the evaluator, but not essential
... unlike tools used during evaluation
... important is to identify when what was tested
... but the developer has the necessary information about tools used to develop the website

PK: not suggesting it is a requirement
... but can greatly help debugging
... suggest optionally recording if the evaluator know the information

ME: agree with optional noting of information that an evaluator may know

KW: may also need to record any changes made to the library

<Mike_Elledge> +1

EV: see this more related to development than evaluation

SAZ: think easy to do with a 2-sentence paragraph in section 5.a possibly

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 to Shad's comment

SAZ: just a reminder to evaluators to record the information that they may have

<Sarah_Swierenga> I mean Shadi

SAZ: without requiring that, as many may not have this information

[Comment #25]

<Mike_Elledge> suggest "person or persons"

EV: think always important to know who did the evaluation

VC: maybe do optional, even though it is helpful to know the person

<aurelien_levy> +q

AL: need to the name of the person
... and the tools they are using

<Sarah_Swierenga> agree that we need a person's name - otherwise how does anyone know who to contact?

EV: tools should be covered within the report

AL: if public report, need to know who did the audit
... and the tools they used

EV: report does not imply it is public or not

AL: WCAG proposes a public conformance statement
... tools not in the template
... commissioner also missing

EV: you may be right, will check

AL: maybe also need a contact address of public statements

EV: will add some of these, and also make some optional

ME: maybe person or persons?
... also maybe different term for "Evaluation Commissioner" as it sounds very formal
... not common terminology


SAZ: think there are times when the entity carying out the evaluation is an organization rather than a person
... also check the WAI Template for reporting

KW: good to know the owner of the report in addition to who carried it out

SAZ: think need to distinguish more between [contractual] report versus public conformance statement

PW: maybe need to identify the purpose, to better adapt it
... maybe provide several

EV: not sure what the difference is between the three options
... need to look at it more closely to better reflect their respective goals
... i'll add what we have from this discussion but will probably need to come back to this discussion

<aurelien_levy> there is also different audiance for the reporting

[Comment #19]

EV: can't find the text
... will keep for later when peter is here

[Comment #5]

EV: we don't current talk about aggregating results

DF: could be sites that are evaluated in pieces
... breaking down needs to be addressed
... also another comment about not requiring evaluation for entire sites

EV: currently not possible to exclude sub-sections

SAZ: we don't address aggregation of parts in any way
... for example if we have all the portlets evaluated, how can we make a statement about the entire portal?
... different from exclusion, which is a separate discussion

DF: two tiers, one conformance oriented and one developer oriented
... some kind of score about how "well" one scored

SAZ: have that concept in section 5.c
... still need to fill it with an algorithm

EV: will work out these discussions into change suggestions
... then bring back to the group to decide on before implementing it into the document

Possible Face to Face in Lyon France

<ericvelleman> 29-30 Oktober in Lyon

https: //www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/EvalTF_TPAC2012/results

<ericvelleman> Could TPAC this year and other continent next year

<ericvelleman> Shadi: we have a room at the TPAC

<ericvelleman> Shadi: EOWG will be there and we could maybe create a joint meeting. Also WCAG WG may be there so we could do cross polling

<ericvelleman> Shadi: All fill out the form

https: //www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/EvalTF_TPAC2012/

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/05/25 13:21:41 $