EOWG 21 April 2006

 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0012.html

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/changelog

BAD Requirements

Shadi: The open item for the demo is the eval report. We are trying to figure out how to scope it. We have some requirements that specifically focus on the eval report.
... The purpose is to explain the issues on the web site and to serve as the model of how to write an evaluation report

Henk: Is this an example report or a how to fix your site? Is it a report or a crash course? It seems like it isn't big enough for either. It is fine to mix them. Just need to remember that.

Shawn: We need to remember the difference over all. This is medium-long. It takes out the crash course. The short version had just the checkpoint table. The other longer one had a lot of information with information is a barrier.
... Shadi and I had a discussion timing and scope
... The current approach up for a discussion is not a crash course. It is more than just a checkpoint table.

Henk: The sentence says...this is an evaluation report that others can learn room ...learn what?
... Fix a site, write a good report..?

Judy: What do you think?

Henk: I think it should be something reporting.

Judy: The first thing you are thinking is how to learn a report and write a report.

William: Creating a report is what we are going to teach people.
... We are teaching people how to evaluate a report

Judy: People do want to learn how to write a report.

Henny: I think it is about how to structure a report and structure an evaluation.

Judy: The requirements don't need to be exclusive.
... There can be primary purposes and secondary purposes.

Wayne: I kind of think that its missing...this thing is a model by example ...serve as an exemplar or as a type of eval report for reading, preparing, organization evaluations

Jack: Exemplar makes people think this is a perfect one. Maybe convey this is more of a example.
... What Henk is saying is good but increases the scope ...another plausible thing is we are teaching people how to read eval reports
... It is important to be a good consume of eval reports

Judy: How are we helping people read an eval report?
... I am having concerns about scope creep.
... For someone who contracts out an evaluation, they have an example they might get back. It gives people some kind of idea what they would be hoping for.

Henk: It is already explaining how the report and can be. It isn't explicit with the guiding of how to read it.

<shadi> proposal: serve as an example of one type of evaluation report to help educate on reporting

Judy: I am hearing exemplar but not a lot of support. Hearing people talking about read, writing, evaluation of it.

<shawn> adding "on reporting" is good - clarifies Henk's initial issue

Judy: I think your proposal from someone to learn from. It doesn't say what I am learning. To educate or learning about preparing a report ...organizing a report?

Shadi: There is the level someone wants to study the issues, detailed techy level. There is the high level about the reporting itself.

Wayne: To educate is a little more direct than the current wording ...Model to example puts it in its scope.

Shawn: On reporting helps to clarify Henk's initial issue

Judy: Disagreement?

Group: Silence

<shadi> ACTION: replace section bullet of "purpose" with serve as an example of one type of evaluation report to help educate on reporting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action01]

Judy: Audience Section
... There are four main audiences.

William: Add those seeking another avenue related to WCAG.
... Lets say someone is given this like the tips card. By looking at this they will know more about WCAG 2.0 then by reading the WCAG document.

Judy: Whose the audience?

William: People intimidated by WCAG...from this get a better idea

Shadi: When we had an explanation of WCAG, we can possibly put it as an extension at the end. it does help you learn about accessibility barriers and repairs. It doesn't help as much with WCAG.

William: It works. All these factors are in WCAG.

Judy: This is an experiential way of understanding WCAG.

William: This by focusing on the practical aspect....this is a spectacular document. This should be given with the quick tips cards.

Judy: Is it developers who want to have a better understanding of the guidelines

<judy> developers who want a better understanding of the wcag guidelines

<shawn> developers who want practical examples of WCAG checkpoint issues

Shadi: Afraid of scope creep

Judy: Any objections?

<shadi> ACTION: add something along "practical examples of WCAG checkpoint issues" or "hands-on" to the audience section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action02]

Judy: Anything else for the audience section?

Wayne: The report is an intense thing to read. I don't think many else will read it.

Henk: I have an addition. What about an evaluator who was trying to write a report?

Judy: We are trying to encourage the developers to evaluate as they go.

<shawn> just make generic?: PEOPLE who want to learn how to write evaluation reports

Shadi: The thought is that the developers are asked to eval a web site. They are not professional evaluators. They want to learn how to write one. Evaluators have a different understanding of evaluation. They may want learn different way.

Henk: I wasn't thinking of an addition...just hesitating

Shadi: Maybe I should put brackets with examples?

Shawn: Just go generic?

Judy: I like that

William: Audience of the Evaluation Report...Audience for Evaluation Report

<shadi> ACTION: does not have to be a "developer" in bullet 2 of the audience (anyone may want to learn how to write reports) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action03]

Wayne: I am not happy with pulling developers out. I work with developers all the time. We are having them include eval reports.

Judy: How about we just go generic and say people?

Wayne: Ok

<shawn> People (developers who wants to develop an internal report, evaluators with different backgrounds, ...)

<judy> anyone (developers, evaluators, advocates, etc.) who wants to...

Judy: Lets move the approach section

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/report

Shadi: We said we wanted a real report.
... We wanted to provide an overview of how I am doing.
... We wanted to view the specific details of why it was not met.
... We included a photo or screen shot. The rough approach.
... We are focusing on section 4 and 5
... Each of the WCAG priorities are separated into a table. In the table, at the end of the checkpoint you will see a link to go to issues about use of images.
... section 4 groups priority level ...section 5 is grouped by issue

<shawn> ACTION: shadi, for BAD Eval tables, consider align top [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action04]

Henk: I like this version a lot

Jack: I like this version a lot

Judy: Questions on this?

<shawn> ACTION: shadi, for BAD Eval, consider adding style to left align captions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action05]

Wayne: I don't understand general barrier...and if you use images ...I don't understand the grouping

Shadi: This is the WCAG checklist...for someone who isn't familiar with it might be confused.
... Section 4 is grouped by priority level which will match people that are familiar with WCAG.
... Is it an issue to see if it is organized differently?

Wayne: I really like organizing by priority. I could kind of see it. I had to read it a few times.

Judy: can people look back at the approach section of the requirements for the eval
... Does this basically work for people?
... I am not sure how to back up to the level your talking about...

William: Provide inclusions for the overall evaluation report

Judy: Plug those into the overall evaluation

William: Right on

Judy: I don't know how to put that into this evaluation report.
... Take that back into the eval resource suite. It would need some discussion.

Shadi: Clarification?
... Have the NWI use the same to have some type of integrated thing? I don't see how we can do that in this thing.

Judy: Can we put into the change long for the future revisions for the general report of the eval resource suite to integrate eval report into the overall scheme of things

<judy> for inclusion in the core eval suite changelog: add an item for future revision stating: need to address the integration of accessibility evaluation into the overall evaluation process for web site development

<judy> & add, for helping to remember: (as per william's comments during requ discussion for eval report)

<shawn> [DONE] Shawn put in http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/eval/evalsuite-changelog.html

Judy: Anything else missing in the approach?

Henk: I would expect that it be based on the eval report template that we have already

Shawn: The eval report template is not best practices any more

<shawn> builds upon past Eval Template

Judy: Use the previous experience that we have drawn from EO development. Gather experience from what we are doing within round to build a quality revision

<shawn> Builds on previous Evaluation Template work

Henk: I was just looking for consistency. We have talked on some of the calls about wanting to based on what some of Shawn and Shadi are finding that we need to go back and change it.

<shadi> ACTION: consider "build on the evaluation template" or similar for 1st bullet of the approach [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action06]

note - judy after first sentence

BAD Eval Report

Henk: I was really happy with the way the checkpoint list was presented.

Wayne: the subgroupings didn't work all that well for me

Shawn: I realize that this is the way the checklist is organized in 1.0. I am against organizing them by checkpoint. Basically when your retrofitting a site, you should look at all priorities and do what is easiest.
... From my experience, it is much easier for people to think of issues by group. If I go to think, how are my tables...gotta look through 3 different tables.
... We should keep the subgroupings but put all the priorities together.

William: I am not sure we can say all will look at it the same way.

Judy: What do people think about looking at it by priority?

Shadi: This is the WCAG checklist...have it as an appendix.
... But...there is a different setting of how can i fix my site...but how can i achieve the legal requirements

<shawn> 1+ sortable

Judy: We put some wishlist items down.
... Sort by issue or by priority?

William: Will one long for the other way?

Henk: I agree with Shawn but people think in priorities.
... It useful.

Henny: People when they have a report they want to take off the Priority 1 ones first.
... Priority

<shawn> shawn ok with the checkpoint table by priority, since section 5 is by topic. perhaps move the sortable higher in the wishlist list :)

Jack: I would come down to is priority ...there are different people who will be using it for different things. Organizing by issue will be developers. Organizing by priority is great for people who want to know where they are.

Judy: The general leaning to priority.
... Maybe one thing to help...say in section four...this groups by priority...in section 5, groups by issue

Shawn: I think it would be clutter.

Shadi: If you want to see how to fix it you have to go to section 5.

Judy: Brief orientation would help by kind of reader.
... There should be a reminder that you are going to get a difference version

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say not by priorities and to suggest putting that in the Intro!

Shawn: How about putting this in the intro?

<shadi> ACTION: add some explanation of section 4 & 5 in the introduction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action07]

William: The whole eval report should be published without results

Shawn: Link to wcag table

Shadi: Is the tabular view in section 4.1 okay for people?

<shadi> ACTION: link to WCAG Checklist from section 4 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action08]

Wayne: it is linearizes well

Judy: New issues?

William: I'd like to see the intro linked to the template once the template gets updated.

<shadi> ACTION: put "add cross-link to updated evaluation report once available" to wishlist of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action09]

Shawn: Most people will skim online, but if read in detail, most will print it out..

Shadi: Some will get it word...

shawn: What if we had a back to contents at the beginning before each 5 point section?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest [back to Contents]

Henny: That's what we do

Wayne: That'd be excellent

Shadi: We have 2 levels in the table of contents. Do we add a third?

Shawn: I would like to see the next level down under 5 (and not even level 2 under section 3 & Section 4)
... It would help for people to see what web accessibility is. It would help people viewing it online

<shadi> ACTION: add level 3 in contents for section 5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/21-eo-minutes.html#action10]

Judy: this is an intermediate level of evaluation. other concerns?

Shadi: This eval report doesn't grow when the site grows. You still have the same checklist and issues and examples of those issues.

Judy: We were trying to make a site with as many barriers as possible.

William: the breaking out of this eval report gestalt...in included the BAD thing....yet its a standalone thing

Judy: The easiest place to look at what we have already done is that is the requirements of the suite. I disagree that that hasn't been discussed before.

<shawn> shawn thinks this is *not* standalone -- the template would be standalone

Wayne: For me the color who doesn't make a difference

Judy: issues?

Planning WCAG 2.0 Last Call Review

Judy: We have been trying to do a substantive review...but more of that happening it offline...we can be more efficient in our teleconferences.
... We want updated questions
... How the public will understand...to use it well
... The draft will be ready...the content is frozen ...there is a lot of conversion
... Mid to Late Next Week it should be ready
... Last Call means...it doesn't mean it's done...its the first of the very formal controlled review stages. The working group says we have covered the issues and have a good set of technical content. Please look at this whole thing again and see if we are done
... That is the 5 week review ...probably won't extend.
... We are starting to collect implementation experience. Next stage is CR. We want to do that work a head of time.
... Next is Proposed Recd. that is when W3C membership is reviewing
... We think that we could have people take different sections and maybe pair up.
... Maybe translations ...baseline for conformance...
... Reactions?
... Pair up and talk about your sets of questions so that your ready to go for EO meeting
... In the past we have given specific questions...what questions are in your mind? Is this clear enough to use?

Henk: the transitions...how easy it to go from 1.0 to 2.0

<judy> (can they roll forward their technical work)

Henny: How readable it is? How understandable?

<Wayne> Will this improve web access over 1.0 and how?

Doyle: The sense of comprehensiveness...the goal is to be much clearer and easier to grasp

Wayne: What is the improvement? How will it improve web access?

<judy> justin: are people going to feel lost & overwhelmed

<judy> ...is it organized in a way that people can get a sense of what's there

<shawn> justin: how organized, how get a sense of what I need to look at first

Judy: send other questions to the list

Shawn: When it comes out...let us know what sections you are interested in