WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

13 Sep 2012


See also: IRC log


Detlev, Liz, Kathy, Eric, Shadi, Peter, Richard, Mike, Kerstin, Sarah, Moe
Vivienne, Alistair


Eric: 2nd agenda item, comments by WCAG WG

<ericvelleman> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Sep/0017.html>

Eric: summary was mailed

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910

Eric: New proposals to new issues
... agreed solutions already in thze editor draft - 2 issues 4b and 1d stil in discussion

<ericvelleman> <https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120904&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120910>

Eric: let's discuss new editor draft - diff version
... any comments to poposed resolutions?

<Kathy> the link for the diff version is not working

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

Eric: disposition of comments has also been updated

Detlev: it is a bit overwhelming...

<Sarah_Swierenga> the links in the irc aren't working

remove the last bracket...

Detlev: proposes to go through issues raised by WG

Shadi: true that a lot of things have happened, may changes, hard to follow...
... Eric's Email summarises the WCAG WG comments

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Sep/0017.html

Detlev: spend a minute to go through meail?

Eric: OK

(Eric has IRC problems)

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 for comment 1

1. issues: change "extends" to "complements" (the existing guidance from WCAG 2.0)

<shadi> [[It extends the existing guidance for WCAG 2.0 but it does not define additional WCAG 2.0 requirements nor does it replace or supersede it in any way.]] -> [[It complements ...]]

<korn> +1 to their text.

Eric: any problems?

<kerstin> no problem with "complements"

No objection

<korn> +1 to their comment #2

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 to comment 2

Eric: 3. issue add random sampling aproach - would take long, for now a temporary solution
... then open an issue for discussing sampling again

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 to proposed resolution to comment 2

Shadi: several people agree with WCAG WG comments
... is there also agreement for the resolution to open an issue?

<kerstin> I'm ok with this interim "solution" about random sampling

<Kathy> +1

Shadi: or disagreement ?

<Mike_> +1


<richard> +1

<Liz> +1

Shadi: temporary solution (review note and new issue to be discussed) is approved

<kerstin> wb eric

<korn> +1 to comment #3

Issue 3: remove 'primary' from discussion of 'primary functionality

Eric: WG thinks primary may be misleading, too narrow

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 to proposed solution to comment 3

Eric: will take time to come up with alternative - dtherefore delay until after publication
... Note will indicate that search is out for a better term

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#functionality

<kerstin> I'm ok with the proposed solution to #3

Eric: gap makes draft a bit ugly but indicates need to fin a term. Agrrwe evereyone?


<Kathy> ok

Eric: issue 4, Shadi please summarize

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Sep/0029.html

Shadi: its in the latest email (about nature of 'sufficient techniqes'
... There is a difference between 'Understanding WCAG 2.0' and our use in WCAG-EM
... Evaluation is not addressed as well as possible

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro#introduction-layers-techs-head

Shadi: This section <link> describes it - evaluation not addressed - there is a plan to update WCAG supporting documents
... There is a latest draft to discuss rewording to remove concerns over the understanding of the role of WCAG Techniques
... will join the discussiobn with WCAG WG tonight

<MoeKraft> *good morning everyone, sorry so late

Shadi: other people are welcome to attend the telecon

Richard: Shadi can you send the details for the meeting (tonight)?

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Sep/0029.html

Richard: it's the one that Loretta runs

Thursdays 22:00-23:30 CET

<MoeKraft> *Meeting Information Time: 20:00 UTC, 6 AM Eastern Australia, 10 PM Central Europe, 4 PM Eastern US World Clock: <http://tinyurl.com/8znozeg> Length: up to 90 minutes Bridge: +1.617.761.6200 (US), + (France), +44.203.318.0479(UK) Passcode: 9224# IRC: irc.w3.org port: 6665 channel #wai-wcag 1. Conformance Evaluation Methodology Draft for 06 Sep 2012     Survey: http://tinyurl.com/9hntt86

Detlev: could not quite understand why they put down the techniques so much

Shadi: agrees - they will discuss to rename "WCAG WG defined sufficient techniques"

<shadi> [[working group has identified sufficient techniques for each Success Criterion that are sufficient to meet that Success Criterion]]

Detlev (expresses view on sufficient techniques)

Shadi: we should provide input

Eric: next issue: define context of website use
... (That's issue 5 in mail)

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#step1d

Eric: any objection?


<richard> I agree with change +1

<korn> +1 to change

<Liz> agree

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 to change

<kerstin> ok

<Tim> agree

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#step4b

Eric: Only open comment is 4b

<shadi> Detlev: "use technique" -> "refer to technique"

<shadi> +1

Detlev: I think that "refer to" WCAG Techniques rather than "use applicable WCAG Technuiques"

Eric: agreement?

Peter: would use 'recode' instead of 'refer'

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Sep/0029.html

sorry; 'record', not recode

quote from Shadi's latest draft: Where possible, use documented WCAG 2.0 techniques and failures to help assess successes and failures in meeting the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria

Detlev: "use documented ... to help assess" much better

<korn> ...However, during evaluation such an initial set may often need to be refined according to the particular situation, such as for evaluating particular web technologies and accessibility features THAT ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE WEBSITE being evaluated...

Eric: can everyone have a look?

<korn> I wonder if there is another place they might be identified?

<richard> It is the use of the word "USE" that causes me confusion. The evaluator does not use the technique, he identfies the use of the technique

<korn> E.g. in communication from the website owner to the evaluator

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120910#step1e

Peter: The initial sets of resources are hwere... but another set might be somewhere else..

Shadi: not clear...

Peter: Wants to withdraw his comment reconsiders

Richard 4b Using techniques - not the techniques to do the job, but identification to tick off a technique that matches a WCAG technique, no further testing needed

Section should say that ticking off technique would be an easy way to chweck for comliance

Shadi: That causes the discomfort at the WCAG working group
... In some contexts, that ticking off can be done, in other contexts (intranet) that may not be as easy
... Evaluator is responsible to make sure the SC are met - independent of techniques used
... WCAG WG feels strongly about that

Richard: Regarding exotic elements could be defined in the step on defining the scope (optional) - other options for more extensive testing are possible

Shadi: agrees and would like a stronger role of the WCAG techniques
... no progress in the next few weeks possible - can that be postpüoned to afteer puib?

Richard: fine

Peter: wondering if in addition to WCAG WG this should also be brough to the EVAL tools WG for extra comments?

Shadi: Good point
... In the review period the ERT WG will look closely at our draft

Eric: Open issue is 4b now, hopes tzo come to conclusion with WCAG WG tonight, will update draft and post for comments
... comment on mailing list from Sailesh

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Sep/0025.html

Eric: wants to reply and thank him

<korn> +1 to putting him first in queue from public review

<kerstin> ok

<MoeKraft> +1

<Liz> OK

Eric: proposed to move comment into disposition of comments

<Kathy> ok


Shadi: this is a public comment

Eric: agenda finished
... will update TF on outcome. ANy other issues?

Shadi: Can we get commitment to check mail tomorrow to agree/object with any remaining changes that might be proposed tonight?
... Then we can publish early next week

<Liz> Yes

Shadi: Please reply wioth yes or no to changes

will do

<ericvelleman> yes

<MoeKraft> yes

<kerstin> bye

Eric: thanks all, hopes to tie loose ends for next pb working draft

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/09/13 21:03:52 $