W3C

WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

19 Dec 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Liz, Eric, Kathy, Sarah, Shadi, Martijn
Regrets
Richard, Gavin, Alistair, Detlev, Tim
Chair
Eric
Scribe
Sarah

Contents


<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?

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-12-22 16:59:42 $