EO worked on two projects at this meeting. First was a review of the Draft overview for introducing WCAG-EM. All agreed that it was useful and that it would be best to have the Overview completed by the time the next draft of the WCAG-EM was published and at that time to replace the current Conformance Evaluation with this. Some discussion about the Skills and Scope section and how those might be improved for brevity and placement. Within WCAG-EM Working Draft is a section defining the target audience. EO suggested that Shadi ask the WCAG-EM Task Force to consider redefining that section with a focus on the Purpose of the document and move the audience definition to the Overview document which is more easily changed.
Next the group looked at edits that had been made to the list of Preliminary Evaluation checks on the EO wiki. They reviewed suggested changes to the template and agreed to a revised template format for each listed item to check. Wayne and Sharron took actions to continue developing content.
Finally, Shawn reminded the group to update availability and complete action items, including the group action items at the top of the page. She said we are likely meet on the 23rd depending on availability during the US Thankgsgiving holiday.
Shawn: In old evaluation suite,
we had an intro page, now that we have WCAG-EM and it is a more formal process recommendation, we
talked about changing the old Conformance page to a WCAG-EM
Overview which we would like to have completed by the time they
issue the next draft.
... please look at the current draft and comment.
... How is overall tone, etc compared with previous?
Suzette: I think the language is good, I am trying to get around the idea about the balance between formality and freindliness. It struck me that the "involving users" paragraph is very important. Is it sufficiently emphasized?
<shawn> 'Evaluations that combine technical assessment and usability testing of accessibility can be called comprehensive evaluations."
Shawn: whether this is soemthing that people will be comforatable with the term and does it conflict with WCAG-EM
Suzette: Defining it this way is
quite useful and includes all sorts of theings that may be
technical issues but also usability issues. It seems a good
step. The methodology provides a separate document for
involving users. May be using "standards speak"
... maybe move "does not require" to the end of the sentence. It is like you offer and in the same breath take away the recommendation.
Sharron: I think it needs the distingushing characteristic between what is required and what is recommended.
Sharron...maybe "strongly suggest" or "encourage"
Suzette: The introduction works well, it needed that.
Shawn: Having realated information at the top, does it send you away too soon, or good to have?
Annabelle: The explanation that it is part of a larger suite was pivotal for my understanding of what was going on. Could it be moved higher up?
Suzette: I have come up with my own solution to links that occur too high in the reading order. I turned off my underlines, so I no longer see them
Shawn: Send another email to the public comments list for the readability discussion, your request for the toggle.
Suzette: I told Shadi that I found the papers for the Readability symposium a bit tricky to read.
Wayne: Are going section by section
Shawn: Jump in anywhere
... Suzette, do you ahve comments about Who WCAG-EM is for...I pulled from previous but also from the work we did on the Analysis.
Suzette: seems good
Shawn: I wanted to cover everyone and create a good cross section without being too detailed
Wayne: I thought it was a good cross section, I liked that
<scribe> ACTION: Suzette to look at both Editor's draft of WCAG-EM and Analysis and see if we want to make changes to the bulleted list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-241 - Look at both Editor's draft of WCAG-EM and Analysis and see if we want to make changes to the bulleted list. [on Suzette Keith - due 2012-11-23].
Shawn: Doesn't need to be
comprehensive but give a sense of the diversity of people for
whom it may be useful. I expect there will be more in Analysis
than in this document.
... the first section are those who would actually follow the methodology and seconed those who might use the methodology for other purposes.
... policy makers pointing to it, for example.
Ian: I can send comments to the list if you are wrapping up this discussion.
Shawn: In the h2 Who it is for, there are two sections - required skills and scope. Just a reminder that this is an intro and overview. Both the skills and scope are covered in more detail in the actual documents. Do we need to introduce both of those things or simply refer and point to it, or remove it entirely?
Wayne: I thought Required Skills is important to have in the Overview
<shawn> use case for overview: Evaluation procurer: We are commissioning a WCAG conformance evaluation and want on overview of WCAG-EM, which we plan to reference in the Request for Tender/Proposals.
Wayne: What is in WCAG-EM may need to contain the Scope and Skills. Maybe a softening of the claim.
Shawn: Do we think we do not need that level of detail?
Wayne: Asking whether this is going to apply or help me whith what I am doing without having the read the whole document.
Sharron: But if we put it in the What is in WCAG-EM as short sentences that point to the real doc.
Shawn: If we put in the intro would that work?
Suzette: I think perhaps the scope shouldbe intro or immediately following. For skills is that it should be in the what is in WCAG-EM
<IanPouncey> "WCAG-EM is applicable to all websites and web applications, of any size and for any device. It is independent of the technologies used to create the website or application, and of any other software such as browsers, assistive technologies, or evaluation tools."
Ian: Developed alternative scope text
Suzette: sounds good, where would it be placed, the introduction?
Ian: rewrite of Scope section
Suzette: Did you think it should stay where it is or move to the intro?
Ian: Had not really thought of it.
Shanw: OK, I propose, we shorten it according to Ian's suggestion and move to Intro. Also add to What is In WCAG-EM section the fact that there is more about scope and skills
Shadi: Need to build in the definition that web applications and mobile are referenced here as well. Try to explain that web sites include applications very clearly and very early on. Leave placement to editor's discretion
Shawn: One of the things we are trying to do is to clarify that when WAI references web sites, it includes web applications. Improtant messaging for us.
Ian: What we're talking about is
applications built with web technologies
... wonder if that is as clear as it can be.
<shawn> WCAG2ICT <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/>
Shadi: Maye the overview should not differentiate too much about web/nonweb technologies.
<scribe> ACTION: Shawn to consider if we need overview for wcag2ict [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-242 - Consider if we need overview for wcag2ict [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-11-23].
Shanw: additional comments?
Shawn: Other comments, Shadi or questions for group input?
Shadi: No I really like the draft, good start. Thanks Shawn and EO for working on this
Shawn: Reminder that we want this
ready to publish by the time WCAG-EM publishes next draft and
we want to give them chance to review and comment.
... is there anything in WCAG-EM itself that we suggest would be left out and moved to the Overview
<shawn> wcag-em editor's draft <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/>
Suzette: Shadi suggested that we might add to the list of steps a sentence or two to flesh out.
Shawn: Since it is still in flux might want to wait until the WGAG-EM draft itself settles down.
<shawn> target audience <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120915#audience>
Shawn: for example in Editor's Draft, they have a section on target audience. What are pros and cons of having that where it now is?
Sharron: Cons include the fact that as it is out there being used, if the use cases are different than anticipated, it is more difficult to change. if we find once it gets out there that the use cases change, it's more difficult to change the /TR/ than the overview
<shawn> Reminder that we will point to the Overview as the first place to go (rather than jumping into the /TR/ doc itself right away)
Wayne: Yes that makes sense and link it back and forth.
Shadi: Why take it out?
... I don't feel comfortable with the idea of removing it. It is important within the document itself that explains who we were writing for and how they will use the methodology.
Shawn: We agree but EO asks you to consider moving that explanation to the Overview.
Shadi: I don't see what is the problem we are trying to fix.
Wayne: We need to take the suggestion to the group and if they feel strongly about it they will not adopt our suggestion.
Sharron: If you have a document that is more permanent, I think it is useful to look for things that might change and see if there are other places that changable info might go that will not be disruptive.
Wayne: But I understand Shadi's impetus to want the document to be as self-contained as possible
Shadi: Certaily do not want to be exclusive in the way we define the audience. We expect people to use it in ways we do not anticipate. But there is a defined purpose.
Sharron: That makes more sense to me, to define the purpose rather than the target audience.
<shawn> +1 to purpose instead of target audience !
Shadi: An overall purpose and overarching goal is to define what it means to evaluate a web site for WCAG Conformance. Do you see why the group wants to put a border around that?
Sharron: Yes absolutley
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to take WCAG-EM Task Force the Overview draft, we welcome their input anytime and will ask for formal review when we have a stable draft. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-243 - Take WCAG-EM Task Force the Overview draft, we welcome their input anytime and will ask for formal review when we have a stable draft. [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-11-23].
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi to take to the Task Force the concern that EO has with including Target Audience and ask them to rethink it as Purpose instead. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/16-eo-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - Take to the Task Force the concern that EO has with including Target Audience and ask them to rethink it as Purpose instead. [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2012-11-23].
Shawn: Any additional comments on
the Overview draft?
... will redraft and put out for discussion
Shawn: Reminder that we started
from scratch rather than rework the ancient exisitng page. The
wiki has rough rough work in progress. Thinking first section
will be 5 things you can do in 5 minutes. Easy things everyone
can do. Then a longer 15 point or so list. Is totally open for
editting. Don't worry about overwriting.
... questions or comments?
Wayne: It turned out that I used the points as my outline on a job I am doing now in an actual task in the world. Dropping styles is not a requirement it is a testing technique
<shawn> sharron's section with heading suggestions <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Web_Accessibility_Preliminary_Evaluation#Visual_focus_.28mostly_drafted.29>
Sharron: I completed Visible
Focus and suggested changes to the template
... what does the group think?
Shawn: Maybe change heading titles to What to Do, What to look for.
Sharron: Done, is that better?
Annabelle: The WAI references, is there a reason to start with those?
Shawn: Would they want to do the
checks first and then learn more about it? or understand what
they are doing before running the checks?
... Going back to Suzette's point, something that references formal guidelines in the title of the h4 WAI References
Ian: Could have an explanation at the top that each Check will have three sections and in that intro explain that it is a reference to the formal specifications.
Shawn: Is there another title that would work better?
Suzette: Need to reference the SC itself as well as Understanding.
Suzette: The SC is the authoritative bit, the standardized text of the specification.
Shawn: Understanding links to WCAG2 definitive wording
Sharron: Thanks for the input all
Shawn: Let's put who is working on what in the heading so it is clear
Shawn: As of now we plan to meet next week to review work on Prelim Eval and will meet to discuss. anything else?
Sharron: Send good wishes to AIR finalized tomorrow!
Shawn: Send updates to EO and other WAI lists if you wish. Bye all.
<shawn> trackbot, end meeting
trackbot, end meeting