See also: IRC log
shadi: There will be no meeting next week due to US holidays and Shadi and Eric's travel plans
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131119
Shadi: Putting together next editor draft.
Working to complete the draft and go into survey.
... Working discussion into document.
... Steps 1 & 2 and 4 have had lots of changes. Step 3 needs a lot of
work.
... Comments received from Vivienne and waiting on comments from Moe and Kathy
regarding Editorial review.
... Launch survey next week with the WCAG working group with full editor
draft.
... Are there any particular comments or questions?
Detlev: Would like to add an important point to our business, Definition of States. This is very important for the entire Methodology.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131119#procedure
Shadi: Let's look at Evaluation Procedure section.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131119#step1
Shadi: Some copy/edit at early part of section. In Step 1, there is a little more cleanup but no big changes.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131119#step1c
Shadi: The one thing we need to come back to is Section 1c defining techniques and failures to be used.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques
Shadi: We describe a fair amount of what
techniques and failures are in WCAG because we decided WCAG 2.0 had very little
information however now there is more guidance in WCAG 2.0.
... There are other bits and pieces that they have added so what we have is
redundant with what WCAG WG has in their working document, however, our flow is
not too bad as written. Is it good to have this here to reiterate?
<agarrison> I would keep 1c as is.
Vivienne: I think it is important to keep at least a mention in here regarding the techniques. Remind people what the role of techniques and failures are and that you should test according to Success Criteria and not techniques.
<Mike_Elledge> +1
Detlev: Definte the way WCAG techniques and failures are used and how to go beyond techniques. Make our statement more pronounced. May be techniques on page to conform to WCAG but may not be documented in WCAG techniques but is sufficient.
Shadi: Two sections talk about Techniques and
failures 1.c and 4.c.
... 1.c talks about techniques and failures before evaluation.
Detlev: Define in what context these techniques would be used.
Shadi: I plan to evaluate the website with these
techniques because these are the techniques used to develop the website...
... Section 1.c is optional.
... We don't explain the situation in this section. Do we want to?
Martijn: I agree with Detlev. Defining the failures to use may not be a good idea. Move into section 1.d as something you aree upon.
Shadi: What do you mean by not using failures?
<Detlev> Anz failure that applies should be used!
Martijn: Just seems strange. Could say that they
report specific failures.
... Could define techniques used in 1.d
Shadi: In upcoming WCAG documents Understanding Success Criteria also includes failures. We could drop failures as well. Just a conceptual type thing. An evaluator does use a failure technique
Alistair: I think this section is important.
Would make things a lot clearer if agreed by the parties involved as to what
techniques will be used.
... You can use the techniques defined in WCAG but it is important to document
other techniques.
Mike: Would it be good to give folks a reminder that if they use non-WCAG 2.0 techniques, it would be good to promote them to WCAG 2.0 to have them included?
Shadi: I like to promote this wherever possible
but is that too much?
... Will take this as an editor consideration.
... Might be useful to reference section in WCAG
Vivienne: Rereading 1.c which is optional. I am
okay if you want to say define the techniques to be used. Is this WCAG
techniques or how you will evaluate the page which may be personal
techniques.
... Need to be clear about the intent of what techniques are being referred to
here.
Shadi: These are all WCAG techniques. Techniques
for Authoring and Techniques for Testing. Advisory and Failure Techniques.
These are WCAG techniques.
... Wonder if we need to clarify in this section what we are referring to when
we say techniques.
Vivienne: Yes. We should clarify.
Shadi: We do say throughout this does not have to
be w3C technique. But this section is exactly for specifying techniques used
for example "corporate guidelines"
... I want to evaluate with "German BITC checks" Does not have to be W3C
techniques but must satisfy WCAG criteria.
Detlev: Put purpose right up front in this
section. Too far down.
... Need to mention all techniques to be used in order to evaluate the website
and not just custom technique. If one technique fails some other technique may
meet the success criteria.
... Just an additional item for evaluators to keep in mind.
Shadi: But we also have to consider failure techniques. "This is the way we do testing at our company. These are the checks that we will be running" Also define particular set of techniques and failures that will be used. This set may need to be expanded during the evaluation.
<Detlev> I think the focus here is really "custom techniques"
Shadi: Which situations this is used in is an
important note.
... Ok, this was enough good discussion. Have enough feedback to bring forward
to Eric and to keep this section in the draft to reiterate use of techniques
and failures.
... Cleaned up Step 1.d Additional evaluation requirements. Step 1a and Step
1b are the essential parts of defining webiste and conformance targets,
additional requirements come from evaluation commissioner.
<Detlev> I still have a comment to Step 1.a: Define the Scope of the Website.. but can add that to mailing list.
Shadi: Also worked on Section 2. Explorin the
target website. Removed repititive steps regarding you may not find all
functionality or all pages at first. This get repeated alot throughout
sections.
... Pulled this up into intro section of Step 2 so we only say this once.
... Step 2b is a little confusing.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131119#step2b
Let's take a look at Step 2b http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131119#step2b
Shadi: Need to at least identify core functions of website and generate use cases.
<shadi> [[Web pages from the different website areas (home page, web shop, departments, etc.) including any applications;]]
Shadi: People feel concerned that items will get
prioritized. There is an addition to Step 2c
... For example, website of large bank, Net Banking Application is main app
plus a currency calculator. The currency calculator is not core, however, still
want to get a snapshot of the calculator application and ensure it is
accessible.
... Test calculator application more coarsely than overall Net banking
application.
... Do we need to identify a different type of emphasis on the testing of the
calculator app?
Vivienne: Are you saying when we are evaluating the web pages, that we look at some differently? Or when we are choosing pages, we need to ensure to keep a variety of pages?
Shadi: This is the exploration phase. Explore
core functionality. Identify variety of web page types from different areas.
... Later we do not yet reflect in our current document, but this has an
impact on Selection, 4.a Checking
... Core functionality will receive more emphasis
... Need to do some level of prioritization
... Would not exclude other functionality like the calculator app but it may
not have the same emphasis.
Vivienne: Outcome - list of type of web pages. Is
this a required section? Are we going to say we are required to document the
type of pages before making the page selection?
... If so we may want some more in Step 2c to document to properly reflect the
type of pages found on website.
... The reason we identify the variety of pages is to ensure we include the
right balance of pages. Ensure page selection reflects the types of pages on
the website.
... Just make it clear why we want to identify the variety.
Shadi: The idea being "Here is what I found. Here
is what I selected for web pages. Here are the results."
... Section 2e Identify other relevant web pages, "Identify accessible
features", "Contact information"
<Detlev> Shadi, briefly cover Step 1.a.?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131119#step1a
Detlev: Section 1a does not really spell out 3rd
party content that you find. Need to identify whether or not I am allowed to
remove 3rd party content from evaluation like Social Media buttons included on
the page.
... Do we need to add a statement here regarding how to define what type of
3rd party content can be removed from scope.
Shadi: Scope of applicability should answer question. It does have a section on 3rd party content.
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131119#thirdparty
Shadi: Maybe provide a link to the sub-section in Scope of applicability.
<Vivienne> other examples are external database for library website, or YouTube linked video
Vivienne: Some things we see for example on a
library website we link to external databases that we have no control.
... Although included in the audit need to be clear that these are out of
their control.
... Evaluator needs to know how to deal with that.
... Another example is a link to a You Tube video without captions. Out of
website owner's control.
Shadi: What would you do with a library site that has an external database?
Vivienne: I would identify that the database is
not accessible and add a statement to such in their records. For Section 508,
things are tied to procurement in Australia. The only place you can get certain
functionality is through 3rd parties
... Need to identify this 3rd party accessibility in accessibility
statement.
Shadi: What type of statement is written comes
after.
... Right now we are defining the scope which includes 3rd party content.
<Detlev> OK, fine - didn't see that provision
Alistair: Author of content. We are expecting
that the author is conforming to WCAG 2.0 There is a possibility to update
document and make accessible. When content comes from other places and there is
no possible way to change,
... then this is out of the power of changing. But if content author, expect
to make accessible.
Shadi: Question right now. Website has information from 3rd party, e.g. social media buttons, you tube videos, etc. We are asked to evaluate web site. We know it accesses 3rd party content. Are we not required to evaluate all this content? Results are somethin separate
<Vivienne> Yes, Shadi that is what I would see. If it is on the website, it should be evaluated.
Shadi: Or does the 3rd party content change the scope of what is evaluated?
<MartijnHoutepen> agree with vivienne
<Detlev> Sorry I have to leave.
Alistair: We would tell people what they have the
ability to change.
... It's their choice of whether or not to change it.
<Vivienne> The website owner needs to know that the content they are hosting is not accessible and then this may change who they obtain products from. Maybe they will then tie it into procurement.
Shadi: Full editor draft out next week with a
survey will go out early next week. Survey will be open to WCAG WG, Tools WG
and Education WG. We would like to publish a public working draft by year's end
unless too many open issues.
... How does everyone feel about that?
<Vivienne> That all sounds good to me. Please go ahead and work on the editor's draft and put it in a survey
Shadi: Editorial changes are okay. We have not really looked at Steps 3 & 4. Are we okay sending it out? If we don't we risk not sending a public working draft this year but that's okay too.
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
Shadi: Will send out Monday morning for a 24 hour review by Eval Methodology WG first and if no objections we will sent out.
<Vivienne> +1
+1
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<Tim> +1
Shadi: Thanks everyone for your hard work on this!