W3C

WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

17 Jan 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Martijn, Shadi, Kathy, Eric, Detlev, Sarah, Katie, Moe, Richard
Regrets
Tim, Alistair
Chair
Eric
Scribe
Richard

Contents


<ericvelleman> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130117>

Disposition of comments

Eric: Yellow places are review notes
... We can now review this and I will send out next version for review before-hand
... We can work through, I will make changes for next meeting

Shadi: Not sure if policy makers actually do evaluation - they benefit from evaluations - they commission
... 1.2 section -I think we agreed purpose not target audience so we describe usage
... Perhaps change sentence to be more functional ??

Katie: In large orgs - sometimes policy maker is also the evaluator.

Eric: Perhapd we should take these people out as they are already in 1.2.

<Sarah_Swierenga> I like the idea of adding this context

Eric: Do we accept Shadi's suggestion

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<MoeKraft> +1

<Liz> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

Eric: I will try to do this in next iteration

<shadi> [[There are many situations in which conformance evaluation of existing websites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 is necessary. This includes for ...]]

Eric: Next is scope of this document

<shadi> http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20121213&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130117

Eric: Tried to find solution for a load of comments - see changes in dif doc

<MartijnHoutepen> http://services.w3.org/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-20130117

<MartijnHoutepen> compared to an earlier version

Eric: Can we check later and review before next meeting (homework!)

<shadi> http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG-EM&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130117

Definition of common functionality

Eric: Changed and should be closed now.

Shadi: Try looking at public draft

2.1.1 Web applications

Detlev: Noticed that - beginning of section 2 - overall "performance" - sounds as if methodology will not work for poor quality sites

Eric: Send me an email

<Detlev> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130117#applications

Detlev: Can it be rephrased to make it more general

<Detlev> agree - which can go

<Detlev> …should be included as candidate for sampling.

Martijn: Third sentence - use of "which" might be confusing

<MoeKraft> I agree. Which adds some confusion

Shadi: Sampling functionality - not feasable to check every function - but complete processes needs care - concerned that evaluators get to decide - each will do it differently - not a trivial thing

Detlev: Do information boxes that evolve (appear) form part of the process.

Shadi: Strictly WCAG says EVERYTHING on teh page needs to be valid
... Maybe there are types of functionality, maybe we can work a way to explain differences

Katie: I evealuate each occurrance - you can't ignore repeated elements

Shadi: Sometimes there is something that comes up often - but is not fundamental to the application. Think a bit more about this

Eric: We can discuss this on a mailing list - Shadi wil start

<Detlev> Each page state or generated page (individual representation of content and functionality) in which such a web application can be considered to be a web page for the purpose of this document should be included.

<Kathy> what about changing it to "Each page state or generated page (individual representation of content and functionality) in a web application should be considered to be a web page for the purpose of this document."

<Detlev> fine

Eric: If we don't want to include everything then we should discuss how we define things

<Detlev> thjat#s nit what I meant!

<shadi> +1

<shadi> "should be considered" -> "is considered"

<MoeKraft> I like it. +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<Detlev> It's going obver the top this way - but let's discuss another time

Eric: I will come up with a new editor draft over weekend - cane everyone check it before next telco

<Sarah_Swierenga> I'm looking forward to closing the disposition of comments!

Sarah: Any idea when we will close dispostion of comments?

Eric: Soon! - before end of January - hopefully

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws#timeline

Shadi: We are behind schedule, but hopefully we can make up for that. so that we can set up practical exercises running method alongside existing methods

MoeKraft: will it be open mailing list ?

Eric: Will be up by Monday morning

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Shadi start maillist about applications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-eval-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-01-30 13:13:17 $