See also: IRC log
<ericvelleman> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129>
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#36
shadi: better term than non applicable
kathy: maybe just put 'met' if N/A, and then put in comments why it isn't applicable
shadi: that's WCAG preference, too
... concerned that if we don't have a good term for N/A, them people will use
N/A
eric: concerned about when the page changes, the reader may not realize that it passed before because it wasn't there
kathy: comments could say there was no matching content, no video, etc.
shadi: not present as an acceptable term?
eric: met/pass, and then use the comment area to describe why?
shadi: this would affect the pass/fail numbers
sarah: if many items have no content, we could end up with very skewed pass/fail results
martijn: we need a 'not applicable' option
... correction, agrees with Kathy
shadi: WCAG has concerns with N/A, since all
criteria are all applicable
... option 1, not promoting a N/A-type option - only use pass/fail
... option 2, find another term for N/A to indicate 'not present' - content
not available on the website
... will 'not present' be misused?
kathy: the argument has been to have something
else becasue we don't want to skew results, but she doesn't want people to
judge the level of the accessibility based just on that number. Some criteria
are more important, it's about the severity. She wants people to get away from
this type of thinking
... need to get into the remarks, explanations, etc. when reviewing the
results of an evaluation.
eric: likes noting in the remarks that it wasn't present
shadi: these options should be sent to the mailing list
eric: just as Kathy says, people can misue 'pass/fail' or pass/fail/not present
shadi: we can discuss pros/cons on the list
eric: step 5 comments
shadi: not all of the comments on Step 5 aren't in the document yet, e.g., kathy's comments
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#39
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#40
shadi: minor changes proposed
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#41
shadi: comment 41, fairly simple, so idea is to add specific credentials
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#42
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#43
Shadi: Gregg recommends dropping the scroing
altogether
... mixed responses
... we are dropping the 'per instance' scoring, and allowing other scoring
strategies. Recommends seeing how the public reacts to the updated version.
eric: There were additional comments from the survey, but they aren't in the disposition of comments.
<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/results
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/results
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#step1c
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#step4a
kathy: we asked people what AT will be used, but we don't have anything that talks again it later in the draft.
<shadi> [[Check that all features are supported by the baseline defined in Step 1.c: Define an Accessibility Support Baseline]]
shadi: does this need to be more clear?
kathy: meeting the success criteria, but doesn't mean that AT will work properly on the site
shadi: first check the criteria, then the AT supports features
kathy: we just need clarification on this
topic
... this question is asked quite a bit by clients, evaluators. Addressing this
here in a short non-mandatory, would be very helpful
... agrees with Shadi that this type of paragraph could go in Step 4a
... agrees to take an action to write this short paragraph on AT support
eric: plan to present a new version in the new year. Next meeting will be January 9, 2014.
shadi: recommends sending out a survey about an in-person meeting at CSUN,
kathy: can we coordinate with other WCAG meetings?
shadi: if we do meet at CSUN, when should the meeting take place?