13:40:51 RRSAgent has joined #eval 13:40:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/25-eval-irc 13:40:56 Zakim has joined #eval 13:41:03 zakim, this will be eval 13:41:03 ok, shadi; I see WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM scheduled to start in 19 minutes 13:41:28 meeting: WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference Meeting 13:41:38 chair: Eric Velleman 13:42:18 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Aug/0039.html 13:43:25 agenda+ Welcome 13:43:25 agenda+ Minutes of previous meeting 13:43:25 agenda+ Recap of the proposed work 13:43:25 agenda+ Current best practices 13:43:27 agenda+ Discussion on the requirements 13:43:29 agenda+ Overview on upcoming schedule 13:43:31 agenda+ Any other business 13:43:37 regrets+ Leonie 13:55:56 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has now started 13:56:03 +??P1 13:56:05 zakim, ? is me 13:56:05 +shadi; got it 13:56:46 kp has joined #eval 13:56:47 sds has joined #eval 13:57:39 +dboudreau 13:58:09 Liz has joined #eval 13:58:27 zakim, dboudreau is really Samuel 13:58:28 +Samuel; got it 13:58:45 scribe: shadi 13:58:53 zakim, take up agendum 1 13:58:53 agendum 1. "Welcome" taken up [from shadi] 13:59:00 +Liz 13:59:13 + +31.30.239.aaaa 13:59:18 zakim, samuel is really sds 13:59:18 +sds; got it 13:59:30 zakim, aaaa is Eric 13:59:31 +Eric; got it 14:00:03 Detlev has joined #eval 14:00:29 eric has joined #eval 14:00:36 +??P27 14:00:37 +Detlev_Fischer 14:01:02 zakim, ? is Kerstin 14:01:02 +Kerstin; got it 14:01:35 vincent has joined #eval 14:01:39 +Kathy 14:01:41 +??P29 14:01:48 +Tim_Boland 14:01:54 hi all 14:02:02 Kathy has joined #eval 14:02:03 +??P37 14:02:04 Zakim, mute Detlev 14:02:04 Detlev_Fischer should now be muted 14:02:05 zakim, ? is Alistair 14:02:05 sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named '?' 14:02:14 zakim, ??p37 is Alistair 14:02:14 +Alistair; got it 14:02:25 zakim, ??p37 is Vivienne 14:02:25 I already had ??P37 as Alistair, shadi 14:02:44 zakim, Alistair is really Vivienne 14:02:44 +Vivienne; got it 14:02:51 zakim, ??p29 is Alistair 14:02:52 +Alistair; got it 14:03:01 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:03:01 On the phone I see shadi, sds, Liz, Eric, Kerstin, Detlev_Fischer (muted), Kathy, Alistair, Tim_Boland, Vivienne 14:03:05 +Katie_Haritos-Shea 14:03:21 agarrison has joined #eval 14:03:40 Tim has joined #eval 14:03:44 zakim, mute sds 14:03:46 sds should now be muted 14:05:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Aug/0011.html 14:05:37 zakim, take up next 14:05:38 agendum 2. "Minutes of previous meeting" taken up [from shadi] 14:05:54 http://www.w3.org/2011/08/18-eval-minutes.html 14:06:09 EV: please let me know if you disagree with the minutes 14:06:14 nothing to change on my side 14:06:19 [no objections] 14:06:22 zakim, take up next 14:06:22 agendum 2 was just opened, shadi 14:06:28 zakim, close agendum 2 14:06:28 agendum 2, Minutes of previous meeting, closed 14:06:29 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:06:31 Hi, I'm trying to call using a calling card but I have some problems with it. I'll call you directly finally. 14:06:31 3. Recap of the proposed work [from shadi] 14:06:32 zakim, take up next 14:06:32 agendum 3. "Recap of the proposed work" taken up [from shadi] 14:06:34 Ryladog_ has joined #eval 14:06:43 http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf 14:07:16 + +1.514.487.aabb 14:07:28 EV: shadi sent around some questions, i just sent around some too 14:07:34 zakim, aabb is Vincent 14:07:34 +Vincent; got it 14:07:43 ...also found previous requirements 14:08:01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Aug/0041.html 14:08:13 +Kostas 14:08:17 + +1.662.084.aacc 14:08:21 EV: any questions on the Eval TF page? 14:08:29 Liz: no questions 14:08:51 zakim, aacc is Emanuelle 14:08:51 +Emanuelle; got it 14:08:55 Hello All 14:08:56 kostas has joined #eval 14:09:13 Ryladog is Katie Haritos-Shea 14:10:15 SAZ: will work on a group page with the minutes and stuff 14:11:04 TB: will be using some form of issues tracking? 14:11:16 sinarmaya has joined #eval 14:11:18 SAZ: an instance will be provided, will explain in one of the upcoming calls 14:11:53 EV: one of the objectives is collecting information 14:12:48 ...maybe we can use a wiki? 14:13:02 SAZ: need clearer structure for a wiki or it gets difficult to track 14:13:10 Zakim, unmute me 14:13:10 Detlev_Fischer should no longer be muted 14:13:11 ...let's talk more offline 14:13:20 okay 14:13:39 Zakim, mute me 14:13:39 Detlev_Fischer should now be muted 14:13:49 throwing best pratices to mailing list = something like http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Aug/0013.html ? or do we prefer URI to reference documents? 14:14:02 EV: will collect information through the mailing list for a start 14:14:16 Kostas: different languages ok? 14:14:27 EV: probably ok if some of us can understand it 14:14:47 Liz: would be good to provide a small paragraph explanation 14:15:04 Kerstin: can all the tests be best-practices? 14:15:42 zakim, mute me 14:15:42 Vivienne should now be muted 14:15:52 EV: might be good to have survey, studies, and such 14:17:16 Kerstin: was just referring to the term "best practices" 14:17:41 SAZ: concerned about quality and getting disoriented by tracking external stuff 14:18:03 ...better to start by our own requirements and see what existing experiences we can use 14:18:12 that makes sense 14:19:09 ...feel uncomfortable starting out with someone elses requirements 14:19:24 ...need a better common understanding of what we are looking for 14:20:31 EV: work on requirements 14:20:49 zakim, take up agendum 5 14:20:49 agendum 5. "Discussion on the requirements" taken up [from shadi] 14:21:12 EV: some discussion on the list already 14:21:24 Zakim, unmute me 14:21:24 Detlev_Fischer should no longer be muted 14:21:29 yes 14:21:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Aug/0041.html 14:21:43 [[Is the "evaluation methodology" expected to be carried out by one person or by a group of more than one persons?]] 14:21:57 q+ 14:22:04 q+ 14:22:06 q+ 14:22:46 zakim, unmute me 14:22:46 Vivienne should no longer be muted 14:22:51 q+ 14:22:54 q+ 14:23:08 EV: number of people probably dependent on their level of expertise 14:23:11 q+ 14:23:13 ack det 14:23:15 q+ 14:23:42 Detlev: maybe have one tester, than aggregate more than that 14:24:03 ...or usability testing or other improvements 14:24:07 ack viv 14:24:15 I think it depends on the scope of the review and the stage where the web is. Stage design, development, publishing, updating. Scope: Self-evaluation, external evaluation, or audit. 14:24:26 zakim, unmute me 14:24:26 sds should no longer be muted 14:24:32 Vivienne: I usually use a group of users, doesn't matter if by one person or a group of people 14:24:32 zakim, mute me 14:24:32 Vivienne should now be muted 14:24:39 Zakim, mute me 14:24:39 Detlev_Fischer should now be muted 14:25:03 ack sds 14:25:18 Samuel: we do an audit with only 1 or 2 people 14:25:19 http://alpha.gcwwwtemplates.tbs-sct.ircan.gc.ca/theme-clf2-nsi2/accessRespBreakdown-eng.html 14:25:48 ...we do define "roles" though 14:26:14 q? 14:26:16 zakim, mute me 14:26:16 sorry, sam, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 14:26:23 I think that we need define "audit" ;-) For me an audit can't be doing but one person only ... 14:26:24 ack Kathy 14:26:57 zakim, sds is sam 14:26:57 +sam; got it 14:26:58 Kathy: often have multiple people involved in the review, depending on their roles 14:27:02 zakim, mute me 14:27:02 sam should now be muted 14:27:05 ...role-based is goof 14:27:11 s/goof/good 14:27:29 ...but also important to have one-person mode 14:27:51 ack vin 14:28:12 Vincent: need to support people with less experience to be able to do some tests 14:28:18 I agree, we can train people to do some of the tests. We don't have to have experts doing everything. 14:28:40 ack Ryladog_ 14:29:12 Katie: not disagreeing but needs to be a test methodology, regarding who is doing it 14:29:21 ...has to work for everybody 14:29:23 we have to make sure to eliminate the negative issues of the "hero" factor i guess. everybody can have a little part of the responsability 14:29:58 ...important to have comparability between evaluations 14:30:11 agreed 14:30:16 q? 14:30:22 agreed 14:30:33 ack tim 14:30:44 Tim: agree with everyone else 14:30:59 ...the more perspectives, the better 14:31:04 +??P49 14:31:06 ...assistive technology use, etc 14:31:24 zakim, ??p49 is Richard 14:31:24 +Richard; got it 14:32:11 EV: so, at least one person should be able to do it but can be supported by others 14:32:14 richard has joined #eval 14:32:22 ...that person would need some level of expertise 14:32:25 [[What is the expected level of expertise (in accessibility, in web technologies etc) of persons carrying out an evaluation?]] 14:32:26 q+ 14:32:31 Zakim, unmute me 14:32:31 Detlev_Fischer should no longer be muted 14:32:35 zakim, unmute me 14:32:35 Vivienne should no longer be muted 14:32:36 q+ 14:32:40 q+ 14:32:50 EV: anyone from the street can carry out an evaluation or do we need some level of requirements? 14:32:53 ack viv 14:33:11 Vivienne: people have to be trained, and have to know what they are looking for 14:33:38 ack det 14:33:40 zakim,unmute me 14:33:40 Vivienne was not muted, vivienne 14:33:50 Zakim, unmute me 14:33:50 sam should no longer be muted 14:34:05 Detlev: often quite good to conduct test be two testers and have them talk about it 14:34:16 ...often helps to make better decisions 14:34:17 q+ 14:34:31 ...to get consensus on results 14:34:50 whois 14:34:50 ...agree need some level of expertise 14:34:56 maybe basic technical expertise of the person could be important in order to understand the results 14:35:04 ...but with technical knowledge can get up to speed quite quickly 14:35:20 ...HTML, CSS, and scripting knoweldge 14:35:28 ...scripting gets quite tricky 14:35:29 I believe that anyone can perform certain tests, but a person who assumes full assessment must meet the specifications of the languages ??or technologies used in the web, know the WCAG, understand the most commonly used technical aids, learn strategies adaptation of the users. 14:35:47 ack sam 14:35:54 Zakim, unmute me 14:35:54 Detlev_Fischer was not muted, Detlev 14:35:57 q+ 14:36:02 Zakim, mute me 14:36:02 Detlev_Fischer should now be muted 14:36:02 Samuel: need some level of technical knowledge 14:36:14 ...but need basic understanding of the reality 14:36:32 ...so know basic use of browsers, assistive technologies, etc 14:36:44 zakim, mute me 14:36:44 sam should now be muted 14:36:47 q? 14:36:55 ack aga 14:36:59 q+ 14:37:23 Alistair: often find that experts have different understanding of the requirements 14:37:33 Different understandings: quite normal, unavoidable 14:37:49 ...too much room for the expert than that would influence the results 14:37:58 q+ 14:38:16 Zakim, unmute me 14:38:16 Detlev_Fischer should no longer be muted 14:38:25 q? 14:38:49 EV: what would be the solution to reduce room for interpretation? 14:39:00 Alistair: maybe some form of a training 14:39:05 ack kos 14:39:22 Kostas: some level of understanding of WCAG is important 14:39:31 ...additional instructions important too 14:39:39 q? 14:39:42 ack Ryladog_ 14:39:53 q? 14:40:05 q+ 14:40:06 Katie: don't want to divide things up between different types of disabilities 14:40:19 ...but need knoweldge about the impact of barriers 14:40:36 I agree, some of the guidelines are more specifically helpful to different groups of people 14:40:48 msg sam Petit test 14:41:08 EV: is this about prioritization? 14:41:22 Katie: no, would not want to prioritize based on disability 14:41:47 ...want to build for everyone, but want to optimize for specific users too 14:41:59 ack det 14:42:20 Detlev: would not need to be part of the methodology itself 14:42:38 ...could map the results to how it impacts specific groups of people 14:43:30 ...in each of every test there can be different assessments 14:43:46 ...depending on the context, particularly when aggregating the tests 14:44:20 Zakim, unmute me 14:44:20 Detlev_Fischer was not muted, Detlev 14:44:21 EV: aggregation is one of the points that we need to discuss more in-depth 14:44:25 ack aga 14:44:30 Zakim, mute me 14:44:30 Detlev_Fischer should now be muted 14:44:57 that's rather where we are now 14:45:22 Alistair: if people's expectation is that the methodology leads to 100% certainty about conformance but indeed it is not, then you have strong ramifications 14:45:41 q+ 14:45:44 q+ 14:45:50 zakim, unmute me 14:45:50 Vivienne was not muted, vivienne 14:45:51 Zakim, unmute me 14:45:52 Detlev_Fischer should no longer be muted 14:45:53 ...methodology should not provide information about how to fix issues but just the outcome 14:45:59 ack vivienne 14:46:31 Vivienne: often assessments include suggestions for improvement 14:46:43 ...something that is helpful 14:46:50 ack det 14:46:52 zakim, mute me 14:46:52 Vivienne should now be muted 14:47:28 q+ 14:47:38 Detlev: only theoretical to have 100% compliance, so there has to be some degree of difference 14:47:45 Zakim, mute me 14:47:45 Detlev_Fischer should now be muted 14:47:59 ack tim 14:48:10 aagreed 14:48:16 Tim: should facilitate education and opportunities to learn about accessibility 14:48:41 I agreed that we should have recommendations, sorry 14:49:08 q+ 14:49:17 ack a 14:49:33 zakim, mute me 14:49:33 Vincent should now be muted 14:49:42 Alistair: goal of WCAG2 is to reduce uncertainty 14:50:23 EV: will need to address that in the methodology 14:50:35 ...how to increase inter-rater reliability 14:50:44 [[Is the involvement of people with disabilities a necessary part of carrying out an evaluation versus an improvement of the quality?]] 14:50:52 q+ 14:51:00 q+ 14:51:03 ack v 14:51:09 zakim, unmute me 14:51:09 Vivienne should no longer be muted 14:51:34 q+ 14:51:36 Vivienne: don't think it is essential but very helpful 14:51:51 ...not everybody will have access to a group of people to test 14:51:56 q+ 14:51:58 zakim, mute me 14:51:58 Vivienne should now be muted 14:51:59 ack ry 14:52:01 q+ 14:52:19 Katie: it is a recommendation rather than a requirement 14:52:23 q+ 14:52:35 ack kathy 14:52:49 Kathy: agree with everyone else 14:53:15 ...testing with users with disabilities certainly helps a lot to find additional issues but maybe not a requirements 14:53:16 q+ 14:53:30 ...but maybe use of assistive technologies is a necessity 14:53:32 +q 14:53:33 ack kers 14:53:44 Zakim, unmute me 14:53:44 Detlev_Fischer should no longer be muted 14:53:51 Kerstin: depends on the complexity of the subject 14:53:53 zakim, unmute me 14:53:53 sam should no longer be muted 14:54:04 ...may need to involve people with disabilities 14:54:15 EV: would need to define "complexity" of websites 14:54:20 ack sam 14:54:36 zakim, close queue 14:54:38 ok, shadi, the speaker queue is closed 14:55:09 Samuel: the way actual people use assistive technology is essential to understand how people use the web 14:55:48 ...was important learning exercise 14:55:57 ...need to keep up-to-date too 14:56:12 EV: needs to be in the methodology or a requirement for the evaluator? 14:56:31 Samuel: recommendation but not necessarily an obligation 14:56:38 q+ 14:56:46 zakim, mute me 14:56:46 sam should now be muted 14:56:50 ack kostas 14:57:15 Kostas: involvement of people with disabilities in the evaluation phase may not be helpful 14:57:30 ...maybe better to use people with disabilities to validate the methodology 14:57:44 q+ 14:58:06 ...results categorized by people with disabilities quite important 14:58:10 ack aga 14:58:17 -Tim_Boland 14:58:28 q+ 14:58:35 Alistair: the more people you ask, the more opinions you will get 14:59:12 ...like the section508 model where you run down the tests then do functional testing too 14:59:16 ack det 14:59:25 q+ 14:59:40 Detlev: good for the usability of the methodology to keep it simple 14:59:50 q+ 15:00:11 ...but agree that some complex sites may require involvement of people with disabilities 15:00:59 zakim, unmute me 15:00:59 Vincent should no longer be muted 15:00:59 EV: out of time 15:01:20 ...please continue discussion on the mailing list 15:01:22 zakim, unmute me 15:01:22 sam should no longer be muted 15:01:25 thanks bye 15:01:29 by all 15:01:30 bye 15:01:30 -Kostas 15:01:31 ...will draft first set of requirements 15:01:31 bye 15:01:32 vivienne has left #eval 15:01:32 -Liz 15:01:32 Bye 15:01:33 -Alistair 15:01:33 -Detlev_Fischer 15:01:33 sinarmaya has left #eval 15:01:34 -Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:01:36 -Kathy 15:01:40 -Emanuelle 15:01:44 -Eric 15:01:46 -Vincent 15:01:49 -Kerstin 15:01:50 -shadi 15:01:54 -Richard 15:02:05 eric has left #eval 15:02:34 -Vivienne 15:03:53 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:04:45 On the phone I see sam 15:05:06 -sam 15:05:10 WAI_ERTWG(Eval TF)10:00AM has ended 15:05:12 Attendees were shadi, Liz, +31.30.239.aaaa, Eric, Detlev_Fischer, Kerstin, Kathy, Tim_Boland, Vivienne, Alistair, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.514.487.aabb, Vincent, Kostas, 15:05:19 ... +1.662.084.aacc, Emanuelle, sam, Richard 15:06:06 zakim, bye 15:07:01 Zakim has left #eval 15:07:11 rrsagent, make logs world 15:07:16 rrsagent, make minutes 15:07:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/25-eval-minutes.html shadi 15:07:18 rrsagent, make logs world 15:07:22 rrsagent, bye 15:07:22 I see no action items