See also: IRC log
<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq19/results
EV: want to go over steps 1.c and 1.d
<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq18/results
<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq18/results
EV: one comment from Tim on 1.c
<Sarah_Swierenga> Hello everyone, for some reason I cannot access the surveys. I have emailed the W3C to find out why the password recovery indicates that everything is fine, but the password doesn't work. So, I'm going to have to wait until next week to participate again.
EV: need to address perceived repetition
<MaryJo> +1
<ericvelleman> keep conformance
<Liz> keep comformance
<ericvelleman> Keep conformance and not use satisfaction
<ericvelleman> as proposed by Ramon
"There are several ways to determine whether WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria have been met"
<alistair> +1
<ericvelleman> +1
<martijnhoutepen> +1
<Liz> +1
EV: Tim wants a link to the conformance section
to avoid confusion
... but now that sentence has been rewritten
LF: will talk with him about the changes
... will also ask him about the platform comment
<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq19/results
EV: proposed text by Moe might be a good
compromise
... need to compare with proposal from Mary Jo
MJM: don't disagree
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140514#expertise
SAZ: thought we had discussed to roll this section with section "required expertise" rather than to drop it
AG: don't like the aspect of "teams may be
necessary"
... don't want to require teams as many individuals offer this service
... teams not always better than an individual
... disagree with "necessary" aspect in the proposed rewrite
<MaryJo> Though this methodology can be carried out by an individual evaluator with the skills described in the section Required Expertise, using the combined expertise of review teams can also be used to identify accessibility barriers. Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility provides further guidance on using review teams which is beyond the scope of this document.
+1
<ericvelleman> +1
<martijnhoutepen> +1
<Liz> +1
<MaryJo> +1
<ericvelleman> Change title to combined expertise
<ericvelleman> +1
<Liz> +1
<MaryJo> +1
<martijnhoutepen> +1
SAZ: also suggest changing title to "Combined Expertise" or such
<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq19/results
SAZ: recall Kathy had action item to propose text
for this section
... maybe this input can be useful for her write-up
... Tim mentions an issue about the use of the term "version" in a side
question that we should not use
EV: versions vs versioning?
"Website in Multiple Versions"
MJM: definition talks about mobile and languages etc, not versioning
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140514#specialcases
<MaryJo> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#specialcases
AG: don't think that many people will associate version as in "mobile version" with "file versioning"
LF: like the word "instance" over "version"
<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20140130#comment80
EV: concerned that may end up adding many more
roles than just designers
... any simple suggestions to avoid this?
MJM: propose to clarify that "design" is also part of the solution
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140514#step3
SAZ: suggest to add "designers" where we say "developers" like "development process" -> "design and development process"
MH: sounds like a good suggestion
... might also add specific bullet on design
MJM: may also fit under bullet "Adherence to the website development process"
+1
<Liz> +1
<martijnhoutepen> +1
<MaryJo> +1
<ericvelleman> +1
EV: can add throughout where it makes sense
<ericvelleman> +1 are for development -> design and development
<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20140130#comment23
EV: do we want to skew sample towards most frequent pages?
AG: proposed it a while ago, for example by using search engine results
MJM: think it is an excellent idea to tip more towards the more frequently used ones
SAZ: can be part of the parameters in the
structured sample
... but random sample needs to be random
AG: how have we decided what random is?
... not sure if it is going to happen in practice
EV: let's discuss that more next week
... there is a new editor draft online already