IRC log of eval on 2012-08-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #eval
13:55:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/23-eval-irc
13:55:44 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:55:46 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 3825
13:55:46 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:47 [trackbot]
Meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference
13:55:47 [trackbot]
Date: 23 August 2012
13:55:59 [shadi]
trackbot, call shadi-617
13:55:59 [trackbot]
Sorry, shadi, I don't understand 'trackbot, call shadi-617'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
13:56:08 [shadi]
zakim, call shadi-617
13:56:08 [Zakim]
ok, shadi; the call is being made
13:56:09 [Zakim]
WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started
13:56:10 [Zakim]
+Shadi
13:56:16 [Detlev]
Detlev has joined #eval
13:57:27 [shadi]
agenda+ Comments from WCAG WG Review (ED 30 July) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0034
13:57:33 [shadi]
agenda?
13:57:42 [shadi]
zakim, clear agenda
13:57:42 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
13:57:45 [shadi]
agenda+ Comments from WCAG WG Review (ED 30 July) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0034
13:58:11 [MartijnHoutepen]
MartijnHoutepen has joined #eval
13:58:28 [shadi]
agenda+ Comment #29 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c29
13:58:40 [shadi]
agenda+ Comment #32 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32
13:58:55 [shadi]
agenda+ Comment #24 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c24
13:59:50 [agarrison]
agarrison has joined #eval
14:00:12 [agarrison]
Running a little late - 5mins
14:00:23 [shadi]
regrets: Sarah, Richard, Vivienne, Kerstin
14:00:44 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has joined #eval
14:01:05 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:01:22 [Zakim]
+Detlev
14:01:39 [Zakim]
+ +31.30.239.aaaa
14:01:43 [Zakim]
+MartijnHoutepen
14:01:51 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
14:01:51 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
14:02:08 [MartijnHoutepen]
zakim, mute me
14:02:08 [Zakim]
MartijnHoutepen should now be muted
14:02:08 [ericvelleman]
Zakim, aaaa is ericvelleman
14:02:09 [Zakim]
+ericvelleman; got it
14:02:16 [korn]
korn has joined #eval
14:02:50 [agarrison]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
14:02:50 [Zakim]
+agarrison; got it
14:02:56 [shadi]
agenda?
14:04:08 [Kathy]
Kathy has joined #eval
14:04:14 [shadi]
agenda+ Comments #28 and #30 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c28 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c30
14:04:17 [Zakim]
+Kathy_Wahlbin
14:05:07 [Zakim]
+[Oracle]
14:05:10 [korn]
Zakim, Oracle has Peter_Korn
14:05:10 [Zakim]
+Peter_Korn; got it
14:05:20 [shadi]
agenda?
14:05:48 [Kathy]
zakim, take up next
14:05:49 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Comments from WCAG WG Review (ED 30 July) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0034" taken up [from shadi]
14:05:55 [shadi]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:05:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Shadi, agarrison, Detlev (muted), ericvelleman, MartijnHoutepen (muted), Kathy_Wahlbin, [Oracle]
14:05:59 [Zakim]
[Oracle] has Peter_Korn
14:07:06 [shadi]
chair: Eric
14:07:13 [shadi]
scribe: Kathy
14:07:41 [shadi]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0034
14:07:55 [shadi]
[[This note reads very prescriptively for an informative document. If it is
14:07:55 [shadi]
meant to be normative, the task force should recharter to produce a
14:07:55 [shadi]
normative document. Otherwise, the "requirement" and "conformance"
14:07:55 [shadi]
language should be softened.]]
14:08:07 [Kathy]
Eric: Need to discuss the first item in the notes from WCAG 2.0 Working Group; This note reads very prescriptively for an informative document. If it is meant to be normative, the task force should recharter to produce a normative document. Otherwise, the "requirement" and "conformance" language should be softened.
14:08:15 [ericvelleman]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws
14:08:34 [ericvelleman]
“The objective of Eval TF is to develop an internationally harmonized methodology for evaluating the conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0”
14:09:36 [Detlev]
q+
14:09:56 [Kathy]
Eric: Question about the sampling vs every page. That is where we differ. The goal is to create an internationally harmonized methology. Should we change the objective?
14:10:07 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:10:20 [korn]
q+
14:10:23 [Detlev]
ack me
14:10:28 [Kathy]
Eric: Should this be informative?
14:11:46 [Kathy]
Detlev: This means standardized methodology. There may be reasons to not be normative. Many people have noticed the optional parts and there has been discussion on the conformance claims. We should not do normative - this would over stretch our task
14:11:57 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
14:11:57 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
14:12:42 [korn]
q-
14:12:48 [Kathy]
Peter: Agree. We should remove the word requirment or conformance to the methodology. We should put in information about the purpose of the document. Did the WCAG 2.0 working group give us specifics?
14:12:59 [shadi]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20120816misc/results
14:13:18 [agarrison]
q+
14:13:23 [Kathy]
Eric: No, there is high level information. Language of requirement or conformance would need to be changed
14:13:43 [Detlev]
where should the word requirement be removed?
14:14:06 [Kathy]
Peter: Suggest changing the use of the words requirements and conformance. "Use as intended". We should not talk about conforming to the methodology
14:15:08 [MoeKraft]
MoeKraft has joined #eval
14:15:11 [Detlev]
ah thanks
14:15:21 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:15:29 [Kathy]
Allister: I see the point being made. Conformance should be made softer. Conformance is already in WCAG
14:15:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.978.562.aabb
14:15:52 [MoeKraft]
Zakim, aabb is MoeKraft
14:15:52 [Zakim]
+MoeKraft; got it
14:16:03 [korn]
q+
14:16:20 [agarrison]
The point was we could make a soft accessibility statement at the end of the methodology - rather than saying a website conforms
14:16:22 [shadi]
q- agarrison
14:16:26 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:16:33 [Kathy]
Shadi: Should we change requirement to provision? Is it just to take out the word requirement or just should we take it all out
14:16:57 [Detlev]
q+
14:17:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.248.342.aacc
14:17:33 [Kathy]
Peter: This is the whole of the methodology - core and optional without saying these are the required part. People can take the parts that they want and ignore the other parts.
14:18:04 [Kathy]
Eric: In informative document you can still have requirements. We should not have the word requirment and maybe this word should be replaced
14:18:44 [Kathy]
Peter: Alternative is these are the core parts and these are the optional or something else. The core parts are designed to be used together
14:18:54 [agarrison]
q+
14:18:54 [Detlev]
ack me
14:19:02 [shadi]
q- korn
14:19:11 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:20:00 [Kathy]
Detlev: Not sure what the requirements that are too strong. Some parts are required and necessary to do a review. We should look at this and these steps are needed to get on the right path
14:20:31 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
14:20:31 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
14:20:39 [Kathy]
Alister: Seems like we are creating parallel conformance model. This maybe what the WCAG working group is worried about
14:21:15 [Kathy]
Shadi: Not sure we break WCAG model or overriding the model. We say accessibility statement not conformance criteria
14:22:07 [Tim]
Tim has joined #eval
14:22:14 [agarrison]
q+
14:22:18 [korn]
"For EvalTF to be used properly, the following steps should be taken"
14:22:19 [ericvelleman]
a?
14:22:23 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:22:27 [Kathy]
Shadi: The concern is that we are using language that is for normative document rather than informative document. There is a minimum set of requirement that need to be covered otherwise the methodology does not work. We need to find the middle line - not exceeding the scope
14:22:41 [Detlev]
q+
14:22:44 [korn]
"Effective use of EvalTF involves carrying out all of the following steps"
14:22:54 [Kathy]
Shadi: We cannot lose meaning by being too general
14:23:38 [Kathy]
Alister: It does break the model. If you say the website conforms based on sampling - this breaks it. WCAG says every page. It does do a different job
14:23:47 [shadi]
q+ to respond to Alistair
14:23:57 [Detlev]
q-
14:24:03 [Kathy]
Alister: Methology be used to conformance claim. This needs clarification
14:24:04 [Detlev]
q+
14:24:13 [shadi]
ack me
14:24:13 [Zakim]
shadi, you wanted to respond to Alistair
14:25:20 [korn]
q+
14:25:49 [Kathy]
Shadi: Disagrees, this is the intent of 3.5.2 if you provide an accessibility statement. You cannot claim conformance using this metholodogy because all pages would need to be checked. The intent is not to say that it conforms to WCAG. The accessibility statement is that in the sampling it was found to be accessible
14:25:50 [Detlev]
q-
14:26:42 [Kathy]
Sadhi: This is one specific use case for evaluation. T
14:26:43 [shadi]
q- agarrison
14:26:49 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:27:33 [Kathy]
Peter: Another suggested approach is to look at the work we are doing is to provide a sampling methology and a way to document the results. This report describes what we found.
14:27:57 [shadi]
q+
14:28:01 [Kathy]
Peter: This goes with what is the appendix. We move away from conformance to reporting the issues found
14:28:01 [korn]
q-
14:28:03 [shadi]
q- korn
14:28:08 [shadi]
ack me
14:28:43 [korn]
q+
14:28:46 [Detlev]
q+
14:28:57 [Zakim]
+Tim_Boland
14:29:13 [Kathy]
Shadi: This is where we initially started from. Conforming to the methology - there are requirements for sampling etc. If people are to say they are following the methology then they must follow some steps
14:29:30 [agarrison]
Is this methodology a means by which a conformance claim for a website can be confirmed as being truthful or not?
14:29:53 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:29:57 [korn]
q-
14:30:03 [Kathy]
Peter: We should about how it should be properly used without saying required. Add language that it should be used as intented
14:30:08 [Mike_Elledge]
Mike_Elledge has joined #eval
14:30:15 [Kathy]
Eric: This goes with core and optional parts
14:30:43 [Kathy]
Eric: Where we have required now we could say these are the core components
14:31:05 [Kathy]
Peter: To be considered and EvalTF, these are the steps that may/should be taken
14:31:27 [shadi]
[[ Requirement -> Provision | Conformance with this methodology -> Adhering with this methodology ]]
14:31:32 [Detlev]
ack me
14:31:34 [Kathy]
Peter: not a simple word replacements
14:31:40 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:31:48 [korn]
Yes Shadi, something like that.
14:31:57 [korn]
OI
14:32:06 [korn]
I'd say "adhering TO this methodology", but yes.
14:32:20 [Tim]
how about "essential step" instead of "requirement"?
14:32:23 [korn]
q+
14:32:52 [Kathy]
Detlev: Not a big problem. Conformance is tied to single page and all states of the page. Our methology has it owns path to follow that we define indepentently - there is no issue. This should be layer on top of the WCAG conformance. Note this in the intro
14:32:53 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:33:20 [shadi]
q- korn
14:33:29 [Detlev]
strongly agree with Peter here
14:33:50 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
14:33:50 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
14:34:08 [korn]
q-
14:34:12 [Kathy]
Peter: It will be more useful if we talk about the problems found on the pages. Valuable to list the issues found so that it can be determined the level of accessibility. Important that we do the evaluation on A, AA, AAA and report back more information if it does not conform
14:34:32 [Kathy]
Eric: we will continue the discussion on the list
14:34:50 [Kathy]
Zakim, take up next
14:34:50 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Comment #29 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c29" taken up [from shadi]
14:35:19 [shadi]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/thread#msg77
14:35:45 [shadi]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0077.html
14:35:50 [Kathy]
Eric: We need to discuss comment #29: 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, first bullet point
14:36:08 [Kathy]
Eric: Rewording request from Detlev
14:37:54 [shadi]
3.1.5 Step 1.e and 3.4.2 Step 4.b
14:38:04 [shadi]
zakim, mute me
14:38:04 [Zakim]
Shadi should now be muted
14:38:04 [Kathy]
Shadi - proposed wording is in email. Update to the role of techniques. The suggestion is to rewrite 3.1.5 step 1e and 3.4.2 4b
14:38:18 [Detlev]
they are in Shadi#s mail *not yet* in the draft, right?
14:38:31 [Kathy]
Eric: any reactions?
14:38:31 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:39:06 [Kathy]
Eric: we could make the change as suggested and put in the editor draft. Then can be reviewed by the team
14:39:14 [shadi]
ack me
14:39:15 [korn]
# Rewrite for section 3.1.5 Step 1.e [[ /Techniques/ in the context of WCAG 2.0 are informative and not required for satisfying the _WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements_; WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are written as testable statements. However, techniques provide documented ways of meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and documented failures to meet them. More information on techniques is provided in _introduction to techniques_. W3C/WAI provides a set of public
14:39:57 [Kathy]
Peter: Looks redundent.
14:40:24 [Kathy]
Shadi: People should look at this and commment on it - today or tonight.
14:40:34 [korn]
q+
14:41:22 [Kathy]
Shadi: the main issue is to explain the role of the techniques for evaluators. Techniques are not required and the differences between the types and failures.
14:42:09 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:42:25 [Kathy]
Shadi: we should do this on the list since people have not had a chance to read it
14:43:04 [Kathy]
Shadi: Goal is finalize it at the end of week to send it back to WCAG working group
14:43:10 [Mike_Elledge]
q+
14:43:59 [Kathy]
Peter: More effective if we have it in form of a survey. Here is the proposed language and what are your thoughts. Email is not effective.
14:44:18 [shadi]
q+
14:44:29 [korn]
q-
14:45:01 [Kathy]
Peter: If the draft is going to WCAG 2.0 Working Group for next Thursday, changes from requirement - does seem possible. Too much to change.
14:45:09 [shadi]
ack me
14:46:08 [Detlev]
q+
14:46:49 [Kathy]
Shadi: We are unsure about the timeline and alignment. We will see if we can save time by not having long cycles but doing them in parallel so that both groups are looking at the same time. If the group wants to review first, then we should be considerate about but it will extent the timeline
14:47:57 [Kathy]
Shadi: email vs survey - both are difficult. Some people do not respond to either of them. People should be responding to both. Questions come through the mail list. We will use both approaches
14:48:16 [Kathy]
Eric: Surveys are for short discussion but email is good for opinions
14:49:15 [Kathy]
Mike: Clarification - looking at the editor draft disposition of comments. Have we reopened 3.1.5 1e?
14:50:27 [agarrison]
q+
14:50:41 [Kathy]
Shadi: We did get comments from WCAG on the working group but also from this group. The trigger was Detlev's comments that were broader that we need to clarify the role of techniques. The two sections need to be aligned
14:51:33 [Kathy]
Shadi: Only comment 28 have been reopened
14:52:01 [Detlev]
ack me
14:52:05 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:52:08 [shadi]
q- mike
14:52:33 [Detlev]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0038.html
14:52:40 [Kathy]
Detlev: We may need more time to address the changes. Would it be appropriate to include more on processes?
14:52:47 [shadi]
q+
14:53:18 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:53:23 [Kathy]
Detlev: We need to be more specific about page states. Should we look at this section and in line with what the group things
14:53:35 [shadi]
ack ag
14:54:11 [Detlev]
Zakim, mute me
14:54:11 [Zakim]
Detlev should now be muted
14:54:31 [Kathy]
Alister: If the methology is to check the conformance claim is truthful, do we need to talk about techniques. Could the conformance claim reference the techniques? Is it our place to ask for it
14:55:10 [Kathy]
Alister: If we list the techniques then it may be different from the conformance claim. What is the purpose of the methology?
14:55:16 [shadi]
ack me
14:56:20 [Detlev]
fine if it gets delayed - just want processes discussed...
14:56:27 [ericvelleman]
q?
14:56:38 [Kathy]
Shadi: In response to Detlev - we are behind our own schedule; so we should not delay it. Comments are good but this needs alot of consideration. Should we go down this path now or wait? We need to stay focus on getting a working draft out
14:56:53 [Kathy]
Shadi: this is only our second draft
14:57:29 [shadi]
[[Website owners, procurers, suppliers, developers, and others are frequently tasked with assessing the conformance of websites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.]]
14:58:28 [Kathy]
Shadi: Regarding Alister's question - we should not look at this only for conformance claim but it is one of the use cases. Confromance check can come at any point. It is one possibility but it is not just that
14:59:51 [Kathy]
Shadi: Can carry out the evaluation and with a certain amount of certainty we can say something about the accessibility of the site. Not looking at every page for conformance claim
15:01:12 [Kathy]
Eric: Document will not be perfect before sending it out. It is a working draft
15:01:26 [Kathy]
Eric: What are the most important questions to address.
15:01:57 [Kathy]
Eric: we should ask for feedback in parallel
15:02:02 [korn]
q+
15:02:08 [Kathy]
Eric: We will continue the discussion on the list
15:02:12 [agarrison]
My comment was: It does not appear to be the case that techniques need to be captured in the WCAG 2.0 conformance model for a single webpage (rightly or wrongly). If we think that the methodology should be confirming if an existing conformance claim for a website is truthful - do we even need to think about referencing techniques - or would it be enough to reference a conformance claim - and suggest that whatever techniques they used should be included in th
15:02:34 [Zakim]
-Kathy_Wahlbin
15:02:35 [shadi]
scribe: shadi
15:02:35 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:03:09 [shadi]
EV: can we send the responses to both WCAG WG and Eval TF for review?
15:03:22 [shadi]
PK: not sure what this will work
15:03:58 [shadi]
...by when do you expect to have something?
15:04:09 [shadi]
EV: maybe Monday
15:05:53 [shadi]
PK: what's the timeline for that?
15:06:05 [shadi]
...is there enough time to make that happen?
15:08:41 [ericvelleman]
q?
15:08:42 [Detlev]
no. fine
15:08:48 [shadi]
SAZ: Monday would provide disposition of comments and updated Editor Draft
15:08:50 [korn]
q-
15:08:57 [shadi]
...send that to WCAG WG on Tuesday
15:09:04 [Mike_Elledge]
+1
15:09:13 [agarrison]
Some of my comments where based on contents of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0071.html
15:09:14 [shadi]
...have Eval TF discussion on Thursday before WCAG WG discussion
15:09:34 [Detlev]
nbye
15:09:35 [MoeKraft]
bye
15:09:35 [shadi]
...to get input on how the comments were addressed
15:09:36 [Mike_Elledge]
bye
15:09:36 [Zakim]
-Tim_Boland
15:09:37 [MartijnHoutepen]
ack me
15:09:39 [Zakim]
-[Oracle]
15:09:40 [Zakim]
-agarrison
15:09:41 [MartijnHoutepen]
MartijnHoutepen has left #eval
15:09:41 [ericvelleman]
ericvelleman has left #eval
15:09:42 [Zakim]
-MoeKraft
15:09:42 [korn]
korn has left #eval
15:09:44 [Zakim]
-Detlev
15:09:45 [Zakim]
- +1.248.342.aacc
15:09:47 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
15:09:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
15:09:47 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Shadi, Detlev, +31.30.239.aaaa, MartijnHoutepen, ericvelleman, agarrison, Kathy_Wahlbin, Peter_Korn, +1.978.562.aabb, MoeKraft,
15:09:52 [Zakim]
... +1.248.342.aacc, Tim_Boland
15:09:53 [Zakim]
-ericvelleman
15:09:55 [Zakim]
-Shadi
15:09:55 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:09:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/23-eval-minutes.html trackbot
15:09:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
15:09:56 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
15:10:00 [Zakim]
-MartijnHoutepen