See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129
Shadi: Many comments, mote to come. Most disputed
perhaps scoring, Use of review teams.
... There was a call to review reference to review teams - suggestion to
respond by chsanging language from "highly recommended' to 'beneficial'
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment10
Kathy: Need not be highly recommended but still usefull, even by not so experienced evaluators - remains a good recommendation.
<richard> Remove +1
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<MoeKraft> +1
<ericvelleman> +1
Shadi: Any objections to changing from highly recommended change to something else?
<MartijnHoutepen> +1
no
Shadi: resolution to change language, but section stays in
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment11
Shadi: Comment No. 11 (Michael Cooper) concerning the removal of a section
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment18
Shadi: Comment 18 )Gregg) :Concern about the use
of the term "core functionality"
... Suggestion Gregg: better use DEPENDEND COMPONENTS
Richard: The thing is about function, not component, functionality should stay - could ber either core or common
Shadi asks people to look at comment 18 closely to solve this issue
Eric: This started with primatry functionality
Detlev Dependent components is not easy to grasp
Eric: can't we keep 'core functionality'?
Shadi: lets wait for responses first, then
decide
... explains difference between core and dependent..
<MartijnHoutepen> DF: i believe GVs concern is about opening the floodgates to subjective interpretations of core
<MartijnHoutepen> DF: afraid of using complicated terms
Detlev explains what Gregg arguments against core functionality were
Kathy: Agrees that core functionality may not be ideal, bu tthe main thing is to link to a terms definition "core functionality' (or whatwever other term)
Shadi: Agreement that core functionality may be subject to misunderstanding we could truy dependend components
<MartijnHoutepen> DF: trying to find an example of another term suggested bij GV; I think it was 'essential'. 'Dependent component' seems too complicated
<shadi> [[From Gregg's comment: I would advise talking about "High Frequency pages" -- and "Pages needed to complete processes".]]
Detlev core is perhaps too narrow, better term needed
Alistair: does not like dependent components, makes no sense
Shadi: Resolution: We accept Greggs critique but think his suggestino is not ideal
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment37
Shadi Comment 37: involving people with disabilities - one comment asking that non-optonal, the othe rtoo remove that sugestino because it adds not so much to checking, mire to usability
Shadi: Proposed resolution: Change to "Involving people with disabilities and people with aging-related impairments helps identify additional accessibility barriers that are not easily discovered by expert evaluation alone".
Alistair: happy with current text
Eric: also happy with Proposed resolution, AListair?
Alistair: Agrees with second comment that says for purposes of evaluation here, it doesn't add much to involve users
Shadi: Still true (ans should be stated) that it is still beneficial to involve users
Kathy: In user testing you always cstch issues
that you wouldn't have caught otherwise, much if it not strictly a11y-related
(also to AT, UA, usability etc)
... we should not open this too much so we do niot confuse users
<ericvelleman> change from 'discovered by the evaluators alone' to 'discovered by expert evaluation alone'?
Alistair: thinks change weakens the text - do we have to make the change?
<Liz> no change
Detlev: Can't think aout that so wquickly...
Kathy; Expert evaluation alone will not catch all issues
Shadi: Explains rationale of proposed change to address concern
1+
Alistair: not happy with change but go ahead
Eric: We need to keep the doc in line with
general WAI guidance
... we say it's optional anyway
Shadi: WCAG docs (Intro, Understanding..., mentions the importance of involving users also
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment28
Shadi: Comment 28 - Sample size suggestion by
David (Candadian Gov)
... Difficulty starts with determining the size (including DOM states)
... Proposed Resolution: Add editor note and ask for more input on this issue,
also ask David for details on source
Richard: Our job is to evaluate, not to establish
statistically correct sample
... If possible, do the whole thing
... else, follow the steps (common pages, add random sample)
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment31
Shadi: Comment by Richard that we cannot prescribe random sampling
Richard: It is up to the evaluator to specify the random sample size because the need for that will be specific to the web site under review
paste?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment30
Shadi: There is no implication to sample.
Richard: Weoften do the whole site - should be visible as option
Shadi: If all has been tested, you can make a
conformance claim
... back to sample size, reiterates proposed resolution
... Objections?
no
<Liz> no
<ericvelleman> Agree
Shadi: Sample size is adaptive and site size specific - What is the objection of suggwesting 10% as random-sampled, Richard?
Richard: Seems it is too detailed, to
resterictive
... Would be enough to say use Random sample, let evaluator decide how to do
it but record what he/she has done
Shadi: Aim was to introduce a minimunm and a threshold so it would scale
Eric: OLd versions were very briedf and were beefed up for tthis version - we need to test the methodology so we will find out if it works, that will generate relevant feedback
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment36
Shadi: about N.A. Gregg suggesting use of "not
present" instead of N.A.
... has been discuss a lot in the WG
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment38
Shadi: about the term correlation
... Please look at the disposition of comments and use the mailing list or
survey for feedback
SAZ: we'll discuss results with WCAG wg and ERT wg, sadly no publication this year
EV: thanks Shadi for overview, clustering of comment. Let's start discussions on the list