Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

05 Apr 2013


The meeting focused entirely on comments for WCAG-EM. EO members have placed comments into the WAI-EO wiki page for WCAG-EM and the meeting was spent in discussion and formulating which comments are appropriate for group response and which are better suited to individual submission. Comments included the following general areas of interest, all of which are linked from the Contents list below. It was observed that:

The group was unable to discuss all of the comments and will reconvene on the rest of the topics next week. In the mean time, some topics were referred to members to submit individually as out of scope for EO.


  1. WCAG-EM comments
  2. Charter - discuss ideas for Initial areas of focus
    (Reminder: Current and Upcoming Work list)
  3. Easy Checks - discuss new issues in new Easy Checks wiki page


Shawn, Bim, AnnaBelle, Sharron, Howard, Denis, Sylvie, Shadi, Suzette, Helle,
Andrew, Wayne, Liam, Ian, Paul, Jennifer



  1. WCAG-EM Comments
    1. Abstract-more positive approach
    2. "Common" Functionality - what does it mean?
    3. Linked headings in Background Reading section
    4. Suggestion to replace "needs to" with "should"
    5. Replace "later on"
    6. Open Issue: Clarification to "Using this Methodology"
    7. Conformance Evaluation Report formats
  2. Summary of Action Items

WCAG-EM Comments

<shawn> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG-EM_revi ew

Shawn: Let's go through the comments from the top. I separated the comments we had already discussed, so we do not have to review them again unless there are new comments added.

Abstract-more positive approach

Shawn: The first thing is under Abstact, replace the approach to be more positive.

Sharron: Seemed like we should be either making a recommendation or not, something like "proven methods" or something.

Denis: But it is not proven

Shawn: I understand that the WG is working on proving it, but we could say something like established.

Shadi: It is a consensus group, and so represents input from many groups. We are starting to see references to the methodology and there is a fear that they may follow the methodology rather than the WCAG itself.
...we want to be sure that it is not recommended as the only way to meet accessibility evaluation criteria and that it remains secondary to WCAG itself. It must be clear that this is a supporting document to WCAG.

Sharron: I understand and appreciate that. Perhaps include the fact that it is the consensus of several WGs

<Howard> no objections

Shawn: Can we just make a note of the comment and move on?

Denis: Can we add "reliable" or something.

Shadi: It is problematic to prove "reliable"

Shawn: Annabelle, can you read aloud?

Annabelle: Reads first sentence and replacement.

<shadi> +1! great to have wording suggestions!

<Denis> +1

<Bim> +1

Shawn: any objections?

Howard: The replacement sentence might be interpreted to mean you can wait to the end.

Shawn: This isn't really focused on the development process.
... Can reduce even further to leave off the first part.

<Howard> +1

<Sharron> +1 for even more tersified

Shawn: OK will replace with no objection

"Common" Functionality - what does it mean?

Annabelle: reads next comment, about "common functionality" and the definition from the glossary of the WCAG-EM

Shawn: I agree that "common" is not the right word. Let's think about what we are trying to say here.

Denis: Navigation menu is a common functionality?

Sharron: Yes but that is not what they are referring to.

Shawn: So they are referring to its primary purpose.

<Howard> "Core," Primary

Annabelle: or primary functionality to retain the reference to task.

Denis: They use the term in another section as well
... reads from WCAG-EM

Bim: I like "core functionality"

<Howard> "Primary Purpose" seems too singular

<dboudreau> what about "core features"?

Shadi: We have been struggling with that. The issue is that it is important to evaluate or particularly focus on the main tasks that a user is expected to achieve.

<Howard> I like "core functionality"

Shadi: the idea is to balance a description of how to effectively evaluate but not make too large of a loophole that would make people say that the main function can be acheived and therefore pass even if other functions are broken.

Denis: what about something like "core features"

Shawn" user goal, tasks, ...other brainstorms?

Howard: I like core functionality

Shawn: Isn't the most important thing what the user wants to get from the web site...something other than functionality, such as tasks.

Shadi: Functionality is taken from WCAG definitions but our intent is closer to the tasks
... what is the purpose? why is the web site there at all, what is it for?

Annabelle: so is "fundamental" a good word?

Shawn: good brainstorm, right direction
... evaluate what the users are trying to do there

Shadi: not sure, we did not go in that direction. Don't want to make it a requirement to involve users

Sharron: yes if you talk about accomplishment of tasks, may imply user involvement

Shadi: A straight forward example is not being able to buy from a shopping site. But others are not that straightforward. People may want things from sites that was not actually the intent of the resource.

Shawn: What about "core functionality"

Shadi: Maybe we can point to that section of the minutes and have the Task Force look at it and discuss.

Shawn: Open brainstorm

<shawn> VVVVVV

<Howard> "Central Functionality"?

<shawn> Core Functionality

Fundamental functionality

Primary purpose

Core features

<Bim> key functionality

Task achievment

<AnnaBelle> Basic functionality

Goals and tasks

User needs

User goals

core functionality

<Bim> ... primary path to achieve user goals?

Annabelle: Pick a starting letter of A so it is higher in the term definitions
...and please not that the list is not now correctly alphabetized

<Howard> Agree

<Bim> +1

<dboudreau> +1

<Suzette2> +1

Shawn: I propose that we strongly object to the term "common functionality" and are happy to continue to suggest and brainstorm


Linked headings in Background Reading section

Shawn: OK next point is "Background Reading" Look at the document. The headings are links and the comment is to unlink them and add the links to the list, since people may miss the fact that the headings are links. Is it an issue for others.

Sharron: neutral

<sylvie> Neutral too

<Bim> neutral on heading links

Howard: I take it that the link to the headings takes you to the start of the list of resources?

Shawn: For the first but not the second.

Howard: neutral

<Howard> I'd rather have the links.

Denis: Don't really like it, but it is minor point.

Suzette: Seems a bit inconsistently managed

<Howard> Not underlined on my screen

Denis: When you click on headings, they turn red

Shadi: It is the TR style sheet, and I will look into it.

<Howard> agree

Suggestion to replace "needs to" with "should"

Shawn: Reads next comment about "needs to" vs "should"

Shadi: "should" has meaning in the standards world and so was avoided.

Annabelle: Reads the paragraph in which it occurs.

Helle: According to my knowledge of standards, some of the difference is because there should be no doubt in a normative document. But since this is not, there is no contradiction to use should.

Shadi: Is was an objection that was addressed throughout to replace "should"

<Howard> "Evaluation needs" is a bit awkward but can't tell you the grammatical rule. I think because it should be grouped with a singular subject.

Sharron: What about "will"?

Shawn: It is to say that evaluation should be done throughout the the development process
... so maybe they would.

<Howard> How about "evaluation is required"? Or is that the same problem as "should"?

Sharron: To effectively evaluate...they would/will do this that and the other.

Shawn: For example, designers, would do this, developers would do that, etc
... that is an approach for if we had to get rid of should and avoid need

Annabelle: And it is common in policy documents.

Shadi: But there is a high level hesitation to make it not be too much like a normative document.

Suzette: ... what about have to do this and that
... the example also has the benefit of being more simple language

Sharron:...or "must"

<Suzette2> Evaluation has to be carried out throughout the web development process to ensure that websites are accessible. For example, designers will want to ensure that the colors for text and background are sufficiently distinguishable when the website design is being created.

Howard: How about evaluation is necessary throughout the development process to ensure...

Shawn: Yes good possibility

Howard: Trying to not add more words to the sentence. So far, some are wordy

Bim: Use a different verb like ought to be

Shawn: Summarizes comments in wiki

Replace "later on"

Shawn:...the next point is Vicki's

Annabelle: Reads.. Second sentence, remove the words "Later on" and its place in the text

<Bim> +1 to remove "later on"

<Denis> +1

Shawn: Might want to take a bigger picture look at that paragraph but for now, we can recommend they remove that phrase, with no objection?
... next please look at comment about intro

Denis: I can withdraw my comment if it is a common practice to do this.

Shadi: And we will revise the Abstract with each version.

Denis: In some cases it seems like a cut and paste and could be tersification.

Shawn: So the recommendation could be to make the Abstract even tighter.
... next section is the table section and suggest that we offer to look at this with the WCAG-EM WG

Open issue for clarification/rewording of "Using this Methodology"

Annabelle: reads next section, Using this Methodology suggested rewording.
... "A preliminary review can be quite useful to identify obvious errors although it will not check every accessibility issue and will likely not catch all of the problems on a site. Nevertheless, to develop a rough understanding of the overall performance of the website, reviewers may conduct such an exploration using WAI's Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility"

Shawn: Let's mark this as open, come back if we can, but move on for now.
... next, Howard?

Howard: Seems to be saying that a section of the website may be self-enclosed and the Methodology might be applied. But the next section says it may not exclude other parts.
... was not sure if they meant sections could or could not be excluded. What are "parts" of the site? It is not clear how sections are referenced, so I was confused as to the actual meaning as well.

Shadi: The intent was to choose to evaluate a self-enclosed section of a web site, in which case that section - the Physics department, for example - must be evaluated entirely.

Shawn: Do we agree then that this section needs clarification.
... I will clean up some of this and encourage others to do that as well. So Howard please go in and add the follow up comments and/or suggestions
... Can we agree that the redundancy of two paragraph leads should be addressed?


Annabelle: Reads "This scope definition may not contradict the terms established in section Scope of Applicability." Comment: I find this sentence somewhat confusing. Is it really necessary? {Vicki - 1 April}"

<Howard> I think it's needed.

Annabelle: It makes sense within the flow of the document to ensure you are not omitting needed procedures, but it would be clearer to say "should not" rather than "may not."

Shawn: So if we agree it is needed, is it sufficiently clear?
... Annabelle, please go and add your comment to the wiki that "should" would make it clearer.

Conformance Evaluation Report formats and meanings

Howard: Reads comments about Step 1b...

I thought the problem lay in the label; the 3 definitions seemed distinct but "detailed report" did not seem to accurately reflect the 2nd report according to its description since there's no detail. Perhaps "Statistical Report" or "Itemized Page Report" would be a better fit. "Basic Report" - not sure this fits the description either. Perhaps "Pass / Fail Rating" would be more appropriate.

Sharron: I think that's a good suggestion

Shawn: So if there are three, let's brainstorm
... first would be Pass/Fail Rating...Conformance rating

<Howard> "Conformance result" or rating?

<Howard> "Conformance outcome"? Conformance Overview?

Sharron: In the second one, you are actually referencing the reasons why it fails
... referencing the SCs, correct?

Shadi: The first is used in certification, a yes/no. The detail is in the second and is the most commonly found that gives detail about why the failure occurs. The third is more analytical and identifies where the errors may come from and how they may be addressed.
... This kind of relates to setting the goal for the evaluation, the type of report will determine many things about how the evaluation will be conducted.

Shawn: So perhaps it would be useful to have the definition detailed out in one place and pointed to in other places of reference.

Shadi: Yes that was the original intent.

Shawn: Do people agree that we should have the definition in just one place?

<Howard> Not necessarily.

Shadi: Yes but there may be a need in the beginning.

<Howard> Perhaps a clearer definition of each and clearer labels would address the confusion.

Sharron: Maybe that is where the definition belongs then, at the beginning. And review for internal contradictions. The definitions are not aligned in both places.

Shadi: That is how we have organized it now, but perhaps need clarification.

Shawn: So let's brainstorm a bit more about report titles and definitions.
... look at Section 5a
... to Summarize the first level report, it lists all SCs, identifies whether or not they are met, and for failures provides a sample web page that demonstrates the failure.
... the Second level report lists all SCs for each web page in the sample, indicates all occurances of failures on every page.

Denis: seems there is a slight difference between what is the 3rd level in 1b and 5a
... I am trying to figure out what is the intent. Seems to indicate we want an identification of each time there is a failure.
... the Third level report lists all SCs for each web page in the sample, examples of the identified errors, discussion of who is affected, and suggestions for how to address the failures and fix them.
... Yes on the 3rd level you are providing guidance for the developers to address the problems and overall help to help managers and developers understand why the barriers are a problem.

Shawn: We'll get back to this next week. I'll move the agreed discussion up and feel free to add comments or re-open those issues if needed.
... reminder that we should focus on the Education and Outreach part. If you have technical comments, please make those as an individual comments.

<Howard> yes

Shawn: OK thanks all.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-04-08 18:01:08 $