The group considered comments made to the wiki by several EOWG members about work of the WCAG Evaluation Methodolgy (WCAG-EM) Task Force. We will continue to gather comments in the wiki next week and then submit through normal channels to the Task Force.
Next was consideration of Suzette's posted analysis of evaluation resources. Suzette expressed her concern that there is a need to address different perspectives that people may bring to the WCAG-EM and to make sure we systematically address those various contexts. Her proposal is to develop Use cases. Suggestions for possible WCAG-EM Use cases have been placed on the wiki and group review and input is invited.
EO has been working on the development of a guide to Preliminary Evaluation - a quicker and less comprehensive accessibility check that will not be a conformance validation. Discussion revealed that group members had some confusion about all the materials that is on the wiki and we made some decsions about streamlining the content while keeping much of the detail in an archival page in the wiki. Member too action items related to this project and we expect to do more work on it with at the Face-to-Face at TPAC.
Shawn asked the group who was aware of the alpha release of Web Platform Docs. Most were not and the ensuing discussion reiterated the need to support the community effort by helping them integrate accessibility techniques throughout the recommendations for development.
Finally, Shawn reminded the group to update action items, to update availability for Upcoming EOWG teleconferences, and to complete actions for all EOWG as they are updated weekly.
Shawn: Let's check in on the comments added by Wayne, Vicki, Suzette and myself.
... I think we will send this to the Evaluation Methodology Task Force with the note that we have not completely reviewed yet.
... would like all of us to enter comments and next week they will sort through current comments.
Shawn: Please plan as well to use our time next week to gather information from those who will not be in Lyon for TPAC
Jennifer: What I sent was really all that I had time to do and the links made it hard to review.
Shawn: Yes, we will make that clear and suggest that the inclusion of fewer links would probably result in more ability to submit meaningful, useful review.
Wayne: I will put medium importance and such on the remaining comments.
Jennifer: Wayne, how are you submitting?
Wayne: Through our wiki
Shawn: Eventually, we will submit via regular channels and point to wiki.
Suzette: I want to confirm that I talked with Shadi about the Conformance score and the fact that it is difficult to understand.
Shawn: Perhaps you could go in and mark that it is an "Important" comment?
Wayne: This is in audit form, which is OK but can be improved. I have drawn Tom into revising his 14 point review that will be useful as a developer evaluation.
... as developers go along, they need a way to monitor the accessibility of what they are developing in process.
<shawn> Suzette's e-mail http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2012OctDec/0008.html
Shawn: OK, Suzette your comment transitioned between WCAG-EM and some other things we are talking about, do want to comment?
Suzette: Yes, I was thinking that we need to address different perspectives that people may bring to the WCAG-EM. I wanted to make sure we systematically address various contexts. There is quite a bit of difference between a lone developer, a large marketing firm, someone doing routine maintenance and a specialty accessibility conformance group.
... I have 8 possible scenarios there, some of which may be out of scope. I wondered if we could look at whether these are in fact appropriate?
Shawn: On the wiki page is a table with example use cases. Suzette, will you read them?
Suzette: (Read the scenarios and comments on various perspectives)
Ian: I have a question about #3 - is the champion/QA specialist one person or two?
Suzette: I think it was one person but is it an in-house person or part of an agency?
... good question must be clarified.
Shawn: Ian, please feel free to edit according to how you think it ought to be.
Suzette: (Continues to read from table...)
Shawn: Thanks Suzette, what questions do you have?
Suzette: Do group members recognize these scenarios, which represent most common situations, have we left anything out? is everything in scope?
Wayne: The one that you said may be less important - the developer in progress of creating a site - is in fact one of the MOST important IMO.
... some of these post-audits have already built the problem in, so I think we cannot overemphasize the accessibility check on work in progress.
Shawn: We should probably look at how we are covering that question. Do we provide enough guidance to emphasize the importance?
Helle: I was thinking about that issue of evaluating throughout the process. Third party evaluations usually occur after the development.
Sharron:I agree that has definitely been the fact in the past. But recently it seems we are being brought in to do evals early, even on wireframces. So I guess I would say that I think early review is happening more often now.
Wayne: Yes one of the things accessibility consultants can do is to make developers self-sufficient for evaluation during the development process.
Helle: I agree with the importance, I still think that if you do this evaluation, most third parties evaluations will occur at the end of the process.
Ian: Even the developer bit is somewhat late in the process. There is no mention here of UX or design professionals.
Shawn: Then we need to do two things: 1. EM itself must reference the importance of accessibility evaluation in process and 2. we should provide resources in support of that.
<shawn> Eval in process http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_in_pro cess
Shawn: We started that page in the wiki, we need to develop it. Do we want to have more resources, do we need an overview, do we want to develop more resources in support of this important topic?
... maybe we can discuss this at the F2F
Wayne: Combining what Sharron and Ian said, we see more consideration made at the wireframe level. So do we have the resources in support of that?
Ian: Yes, absolutely from choice of colors to navigation paths, etc. You want developers to have a very clear path - from things as basic as what does a link look like when it receives focus and onward.
Suzette: So should I add another story in there? Third party structural development...or?
Sharron: It is design rather than development.
Shawn: So it belongs in the last row.
Wayne: Yes, but it needs to be emphasized. If you can get accessibility built into high level object and analysis, you have done tremendous good.
Suzette: I am going to riskily edit the table now...
Shawn: You're brave.
Ian: Point 3 of "Evaluate throughout design and development process", not sure about the message...
... But there is a difference between process and design decisions.
Shawn: But WCAG-EM will not apply to the process, will it? You would be using Prelim Eval
... how much of WCAG-EM applies to that process of advising during the wireframe/design phase?
Wayne: Quite a bit
Sharron: Less formally related to WCAG-EM, more conceptual
Shawn: WCAG-EM will be a formal document. We had talked about having Prelim Eval and perhaps a Conformance Evaluation page that is a kind of WCAG-EM light. Then WCAG-EM would be the vehicle for legal, compliance review reporting.
Ian: Like user testing with wireframes, you could evaluate a lot of the points that way before you go into development.
Wayne: Light then is something you don't do in 5 minutes, but in an entire afternoon.
<Suzette2> gorilla or guerrilla?
Shawn: The integration of accessibility evaluation into other development protocols is very important.
<IanPouncey> guerrilla testing (could be with done with gorillas)
<shawn> aka discount usability
Ian: Print out wire frames and find people on the street and just say, what would you expect this to do, what do you think?
<shawn> Waving Magic Wands: Interaction Techniques to Improve Usability Testing Low Fidelity Prototypes, Usability Professionals' Association (UPA) 2000 Conference Proceedings, August 2000.
Wayne: I think the basic ideas don't change but the technology that it is being applied to changes so much that concepts must be updated.
<shawn> aka Design Walkthroughs http://www.uiaccess.com/ac cessucd/evaluate.html#walkthroughs
Shawn: With the analysis and such it is an internal document that does not need full polishing and I expect it will continue to evolve as we get into these questions more deeply.
... any more questions for this project?
... remember this is a wiki so anyone can go in and change. Might be good to put in order of importance.
Suzette: Do you want me to do that?
Shawn: That would be great, thank you.
... Earlier in the table, we have the "general idea" concept and some scenarios related to that.
... related to the Prelim Eval
Shawn: Want to look at this outline and get impressions, get some clarity on where we've been, where we're going with this.
... had talked about two sections: First QuickCheck that anyone can do with no tools. Second is if you have more time, knowledge and tools, what can you check.
Sharron:Reveiw of all the braindump materials was confusing to me. I tried to distill into an outline for an approach. The idea is to give quick - direct, to the point, informal guidance. 5 seemed like the magic number... 5 things you can do in 5 minutes. Then for next levels, add more time,more skills, more tools.
Wayne: More important than page title is enlarge page.
Shawn: That's specific comment, what about approach?
Wayne: I like the approach
Ian: What about the ongoing checks during development cycle, how could that get folded into this approach?
... help developers integrate into workflow.
Shawn: here is a resource
... we have some stuff that addresses that but not yet robust enough to point to.
<scribe> ACTION: Ian to write a draft of brief list of how to integrate accessibility checks into workflow. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-eo-m inutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-218 - Write a draft of brief list of how to integrate accessibility checks into workflow. [on Ian Pouncey - due 2012-10-26].
<scribe> ACTION: Wayne to work with Tom on 14 point document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-eo-m inutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-219 - Work with Tom on 14 point document [on Wayne Dick - due 2012-10-26].
Shawn: In terms of picking what the 5 quick check items would be. I suggest we make a list of checks in general and then flag one that might be candidates for QC
... next steps will be to move a lot of this to the discussion tab or notes page to simplify where all the pieces are.
... useful would be to have an outline of the topics we have discussed.
Sharron: This is so confusing to me, explain?
Shawn: Don't want to lose this good information, but since we are going for clarity it may not belong here.
... put it somewhere so it is not lost, but this page includes the shorter intro, blank quick checks (with explanation) and then an outline how the Main Prelim Eval will be conducted.
<scribe> ACTION: Sharron to edit wiki page to clarify the format for those who are new to this project but keeps archival work as background for later reference. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-eo-m inutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-220 - Edit wiki page to clarify the format for those who are new to this project but keeps archival work as background for later reference. [on Sharron Rush - due 2012-10-26].
Wayne: Include data pages that have options for checking methodology.
... secondary references, but understandable.
Shawn: Like BAD?
Wayne: Yes, if we point to it but not create new materials.
... so we create checks and demonstrate how to do them using BAD.
Shawn: Other thoughts on this approach?
Sharron: Question for Ian, do we have a separate section for the process we discussed of developers in the middle of workflow within their project development?
Ian: That may fit better into eval and process page. I need to work on this for my CSUN paper. I will put it on the wiki page. Seems like there could be several disciplines that could benefit from this.
<shawn> ian put workflow ideas in http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_in_pro cess
Shawn: So the tradeoff is do we have on broad approach that is not quite perfect for all or do we have a bunch of smaller and maybe cluttered items?
Sharron: Do I understand correctly that on this page we will NOT make the workflow section?
Shawn: Yes for now with the understanding that we may revisit and add in as needed/possible.
... any other questions, comments?
... Let's consider that with our current approach, should we focus on just looking at one page in the Prelim Eval and put choosing sample representative pages, reporting, etc to Conformance?
Sharron: I think the reporting question is more important than the number of pages
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn update http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/template.html WCAG 1.0 -> 2.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-eo-m inutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Update http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/template.html WCAG 1.0 -> 2.0 [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-10-26].
Jennifer: Yes, have to have something that you can glance at that is organized. A spreadsheet or something.
Shawn: There are sample report formats in BAD. Do we want to make something less scary?
Jennifer: I have seen 10 million of these report formats posted. Let's see what's out there.
... before we create a new one.
Shawn: We might even create a checklist as one-to-one. Here is what I checked and this is what I found.
Wayne: Yes that's what you need
Shawn: If we go back to the Use cases, let's think about what they might need.
Sharron: I am fine with making the Prelim Eval reference just one page. With the note that if you are looking at more pages or more extensive evaluation, go to Conformance Eval instead.
Suzette: Once you go into the more extensive PreLim Eval, you have a different situation they may require more pages than just one.
Ian: Yes but if you are thinking of specifics like a form, you can look at those in isolation.
Suzette: I worry about people missing errors by focused on a very simple page.
Shawn: And some of the points made in Denis' original intro may be appropriate for the conclusion.
... and may want to rename the page "Quick Checks." Even Preliminary Evaluation may promise too much.
Wayne: Will we include ARIA?
Shawn: We certainly can as we flesh out the content.
... our approach may be to list everything, a list that is too long at first. Then scope it down.
Wayne: On content structure and semantics - that's where enlargement really pulls out a lot of junk.
... I have found that it shakes out a lot of bad structural elements.
... what we want is to point to one test that reveals many errors and/or conformance violations.
... we want to think about multicriteria tests.
Shawn: In terms of timing for this, it will be useful to have it in conjunction with the progress on WCAG-EM... and the Face to Face.
Shawn: Who has heard of this?
... WebEd work moved over to this. That is why the hurry to develop our Basic Accessibility work to contribute to it.
... 1. Thanks for all the work on Accessibility Basic page, that is now part of this newly published work that is making a big impact.
... 2 there is also a list of accessibility articles
... 3 I think we still want to use leverage of community groups, this effort, and WAI work to maximize accessiiblity awareness.
... the success of this in getting attention to these resources has been impressive.
Shawn: But it was hugely visited and so accessibility comments may have gotten lost.
... we need to think about whether there are other things that we would like to encourage development of on WebPlatformDocs?
... how can we encourage accessibility references within the rest of the development techniques.
... for example, what do we need to do to integrate accessibility into the basic direction of forms, for example or other development questions.
Shawn: One thing might be - here is a list of pages that we found that need accessibility content. Who is willing to add to the wiki in that way?
... maybe in relation to AccessiiblityCamps?
... get them involved
... I just wanted to introduce this idea, integration rather than a separate approach to accesibility
... We are at the end of the meeting time. Appreciate your work and effort.