WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

20 Dec 2012


See also: IRC log


Liz, Katie, Martijn, Kathy, Shadi, Mike, Eric, Peter, Tim
Alistair, Vivienne, Sarah


Eric: Welcome, last call for this year
... Next Topic: 2. Disposition of Comments
... a number of people have added comments.
... new approach to help people follow the discussions; the main document to look at is the editor draft
... main way to provide feedback is the survey
... look at the diff version to look at the changes
... Eric will send out emails about topics to discuss
... he is grouping comments together

#3. Surveys


Eric: we will now discuss the survey
... Start talking about DoC_ID_31 - Change states to web pages

<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq6/results#x2631

<MartijnHoutepen> https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120915&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20121213#specialcases

Peter: Maybe we should re-write the paragraph

<korn> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#specialcases

Peter: maybe we should have definition of web app

<shadi> +1 to change

Peter - maybe we should change state to change

Peter: maybe need to describe the actions and data required for the page state

<ericvelleman> Shadi, we cannot hear you


<ericvelleman> changing states to changes

<shadi> [[+1 to not using techie jargon like "page state"]]

Eric: what do people think about changing change state to changes

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

Eric: should we rewrite this


Shadi: agrees with Peter. We need to rewrite this section

Eric: next discussion DoC_ID_37 - Automatic Evaluation thoughts
... we did add some information on automation. Some comments on using just automation but that is not enough
... different proposal on where we can add this information - reporting

Peter: 17% of WCAG 2.0 is automateable
... need to also think about web app

Eric: no one suggested adding it as another step

Peter: we can state that is may be a component with the limitations that....

Kathy: limitations with the tools for web apps

Eric: will come up with a text proposal within the document
... does anyone think this needs to be a separate step

Peter: maybe an optional step with the limitations stated

Eric: should it be in the reporting section

Peter: yes, should be in reporting section

Shadi: on the fence; limitation of tools is so big. I like the idea as an optional step. We didn't forget about tools but that we are stating the limitation. It is not a required step
... we can clearly message as a supporting step
... The advice before was old when it there was more static pages from WCAG 1.0 days
... it needs to be updated

Tim: consulting on a project, they think that the use of automated tools is sufficient. So it is important to note that it is not sufficient

Shadi: if it is a separate step then we can explain the role of tools and we can answer the questions about how it could fit in

Tim: It needs to be consistent across WAI on the use of tools

Peter: we should go to some length about tools in the explanation within the document
... automated tools alone will not get the results needed

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools

Shadi: Tim we can follow up separately. The document for selecting tools needs to be updated. These tools are useful. David estimated 15% could be automated for failure
... if we talk about conformance then this percentage goes down
... automated tools cover small portion
... make sure that the shed false light; tools are important. The are just a part or component

Peter: in addition to automated tools. Tools that are no automated are also useful
... we need to make the clarification on automated tools vs tool assisted evaluation

Shadi: agree; the document selecting tools has some of that information
... we want to describe how it fits in the process

Kathy: there are also reporting tools. We should include all three

Eric: I have the input for the new editor draft. I will add a step.
... where does it go?
... maybe audit the selected sample

Kathy: maybe not the last step. Should be in the order that you would conduct the review

Martin: need to rewrite the section and think about where it goes

Eric: I will make a proposal

<MartijnHoutepen> +1


<Tim> +1

<Liz> +1

Eric: anything else on this one?
... let's move on to DoC_ID_49 - Extend target with more SC

<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq6/results#xq5

Input for one page web applications

Are one page web applications covered sufficiently in the current version of the WCAG-EM? If you think not, where should we add this?

Eric: saw a lot of discussion on this. We want to add the proposal to the next draft

Peter: testing web application is a fundamentally different process. The approach, documentation will be different
... not sure if this is best to have a separate steps

Eric: would you say this is not sufficient for web apps

Peter: yes, this not sufficient yet

Eric: Maybe we should have more discussion on this topic

Peter: we should point people to where we are talking about web applications

Eric: we will point to the sections with web app

Kathy: also ask about what is missing

Eric: we are at the end of the call; are there any other issues
... Very Merry Christmas
... I will send out an agenda
... Next meeting will be Jan 10

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-01-30 13:08:55 $