Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

30 Aug 2012


See also: IRC log


Robin_Tuttle, Bruce_Bailey, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Shadi, andrew, Kathy_Wahlbin, adam_solomon, Eric_Velleman, Cooper, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Marc_Johlic, [Microsoft], David_MacDonald


<trackbot> Date: 30 August 2012

<scribe> scribe: shadi

updated draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827




[[This document specifies an internationally harmonized methodology for evaluating the accessibility conformance of existing websites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. It defines an approach for conformance evaluation of entire websites as opposed to page-by-page evaluation that is already defined by WCAG 2.0]] ... [[Website owners, procurers, suppliers, developers, and others are frequently tasked with assessing the conformance of exi

sting websites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0]]

GV: "an internationally harmonized" -> "a methodology"
... remove "to WCAG 2.0"
... need random sample to ensure confidence

EV: want public input to further improve the sampling procedure

TF Work Statment [[The objective of Eval TF is to develop an internationally harmonized methodology for evaluating the conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0]] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws

GV: not suggesting change of scope but rather wording
... "reasonable confidence" is a good phrase to consider
... remove "*entire* website" ... not asserting that entire site is conformant
... mix sampling between most used, critical, and random

<ericvelleman> Great input from Gregg

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c7

GV: using normative language

LGR: less than a quarter directly WCAG
... need more review before publishing

MC: don't want to publish with confusing language between normative and informative

SAZ: wonder if the public provides the right answer for this type of questions?

EV: would like to get input from the public
... still does not resolve the issue of confusion, regardless if NOTE or REC
... may reinforce that this is THE rather than A methodology
... "Methodology Requirement" rather than "Requirement" in addition to the changes in the Abstract and Introduction sections

LGR: like the idea of using "Methodology Requirement"

MC: add note that the term "Methodology Requirement" is temporary and as for public input


<Loretta> Typo: Requirement 4 twice in section 5.

GV: defines *this* methodology, so quite normative

LGR: ambiguity with "WCAG conformance"
... another example of normativity labnguage

[[However, it is required that the following requirements defined by this methodology are met]]

EV: [[However, it is required by this methodology that the following requirements are met]]

GV: if you have any requirements at all then it is a standard
... can't even have "must", "shall", "require"
... if want a standard then has to be normative
... otherwise cannot use normative language
... could provide several methods
... people could select between these methods
... or could just describe the method
... not sure what the benefit of the "must"s is
... possibly can achieve the same goal without using normative language

EV: when people select one of several methods, they still need to follow particular steps
... would replace "Requirement" with "step" help?

GV: yes, just describe the process

LGR: would be OK with making language as clear as possible and adding editor notes for public feedback

GV: taking the normative language out may get readers more focused on the actual content
... not sure of benefits of making REC other than referencability, such as by policies

<Loretta> If we want to go toward a normative methodology, it would help to separate the WCAG-specific info from the general website evaluation parts.

<Loretta> I'm not sure how many of us will be at TPAC.



Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/08/30 21:54:18 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: shadi
Inferring ScribeNick: shadi

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Robin_Tuttle, Bruce_Bailey, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Shadi, andrew, Kathy_Wahlbin, adam_solomon, Eric_Velleman, Cooper, Andi_Snow_Weaver, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Marc_Johlic, [Microsoft], David_MacDonald
Present: Robin_Tuttle Bruce_Bailey Loretta_Guarino_Reid Shadi andrew Kathy_Wahlbin adam_solomon Eric_Velleman Cooper Andi_Snow_Weaver Gregg_Vanderheiden Marc_Johlic [Microsoft] David_MacDonald
Regrets: Moe_Kraft
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0061.html
Found Date: 30 Aug 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/30-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]