WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

13 Oct 2011

See also: IRC log


Kathy, Shadi, Samuel, Liz, Vivienne, Katie, Amy, Eric, Sarah, Mike, Leonie, Vincent, Tim
Detlev, Alistair, Richard, Kostas, Kerstin



<shadi> latest version of the requirements available here: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology-reqs/

Title of the Methodology

EricVelleman: great discussion on the name of the methodology. Great ideas and thanks to all for contributing.
... 3 candidates for a name.

<AmyChen> +1

<Vincent> Thank you shadi

shadi: suggests to keep an easy short name to remember

<EricVelleman> Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0 ?

<EricVelleman> Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0

<EricVelleman> Methodology for Evaluating Website Accessibility Conformance

AmyChen: it is a good idea to seperate the title from the short name that will be used on a "daily" basis which is more convenient in order that we won't have to explain an accronym everytime we speak of the methodology.

EricVelleman: so we could keep the actual name that we have (Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0) and keep a short name like "WAICAG Check"

<shadi> "Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology"

<Vincent> I ran short of battery. As soon as he other device is ready, I'm back on line :-(

<shadi> "Accessibility Evaluation Methodology"

<shadi> "Evaluation Methodology for Accessibility"

LeonieWatson: why don't we keep a short title like "Accessibility Evaluation Methodology" and keep that name in conversations? no accronym or shorter name.

<vivienne> I rather like just something simple like" website accessibility evaluation methodology

<LeonieWatson> +1 to Vivienne

<vivienne> why do we even need an acronym?

EricVelleman: it could be interesting to add "website" to LeonieWatson's name, which makes us coming back to our original title. website is important, but we could drop WCAG 2.

shadi: what about the word "conformance" in the title? do we want to clarify that it is a conformance evaluation?

AmyChen: for me, sounds clear it is a methodology of conformance. But about the "WCAG 2.0", we could drop the "2.0" in order to be inclusive on futur WCAG work.

<vivienne> mute me

vivienne: when talking about accessibility and parameters of W3C, the conformance is assumed. so we do not need the "conformance" noise in the title.

<Kathy> +1 I agree

<shadi> Candidate: "Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology"

<vivienne> +1

<EricVelleman> Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology

<LeonieWatson> +1

<mike_elledge> +1

<vivienne> +1

<Kathy> +1

<EricVelleman> +1

<Tim> +1

<SarahSwierenga> +1

<Liz> +1

EricVelleman: proposes "Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology".

Adopted by every presents.

shadi: there is critics about accessibility view only on the conformance. that angle may forget some aspects of accessibility for some populations. so let's keep in mind that we do will have a conformance methodology.

<AmyChen> Maybe add the word "conformance" and WCAG in the abstract?

shadi: even though we will surely suggest user tests in the methodology, it may not be directly include in the methodology. so it is a conformance methodology.

<shadi> - SiteAccess

<shadi> - WCAG-Check

<shadi> - AccessSite

<shadi> - WCAG-Site

<shadi> - AccessCheck

<shadi> - SiteCheck

<shadi> - CheckSite

<shadi> - WAMBAM

<shadi> - title

shadi: now that we have a title, what is the "short name"?

<shadi> - WAEM

<shadi> - WAM

<shadi> - WEM

<Ryladog_> WCAG-Check +1

EricVelleman: i do hear that we don't want another accronym that we'll have to explain everytime.

<Vincent> WCAG-Check +1

<EricVelleman> wcag-check?

vivienne: i'm not crazy about the accronym thing. i do prefer WCAG-Check, since that's what we are doing.

<Ryladog_> +1

<Vincent> <abbr title="WCAG-Check (Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology)">WCAG-Check</abbr> ;-)

mike_elledge: wondering that we could end up with too much terms for the same thing.

<vivienne> I'd prefer no acronym at all, but if we have to have a short name, go with something that doesn't require learning a new acronym

LeonieWatson: we could juste get a title and let it be. people will name it as they want anyways for there daily use.

shadi: even though people will use "custom names", it may still be interesting to address this issue with a catchy short name. it will pay off on the futur.

<mike_elledge> Web Accessibility Methodology for Evaluation (WAME)?

shadi: responding to Tim (couldn't get the question right) the shorter the name, the easier it will be promoted.

Ryladog_: wcag-check says it all.

<Vincent> I'm back on phone.

<shadi> WCAG-Eval

AmyChen: what about WCAG-Eval? since it's about evaluation.

<vivienne> WCAG sounds like we evaluating WCAG?

LeonieWatson: suggestion: WCAG-Methodology, because "eval" sounds like "evil"

<vivienne> WCAG Site-Check?

shadi: do we have to think more about that short name? we should push it to the mailing list again.

EricVelleman: yes. let's push it back to the list and discuss there.

shadi: we may check also with other groups if we could have outside ideas.

EricVelleman: let's decide on our next meeting.

<shadi> WCAG-Method

<SarahSwierenga> okay with me

<vivienne> fine with me

AmyChen: let's add WCAG-Method to the discussion on the list.

Other open issues about the requirements

<vivienne> I'm okay with the document as it stands - looks great

EricVelleman: let's just wrap up the requirements for now, we could get back to those in the futur, but we can now start with the methodology. Anyone disagree?

<Kathy> I think we are good to move onto the methodology

AmyChen: have trouble with R9: Consideration for occassional oversight errors

<vivienne> pre-requisites is spelled incorrectly, isn't it?

shadi: it was an attempt to describe in other words the "tollerence" aspect of the methodology.

AmyChen: ok. let's keep the wording (Consideration for occassional oversight errors) and go on with the methodology. we can go back later.

EricVelleman: i will send around a table of content (TOC) and everyone could describe what they espect of each sections (and add missing sections if any).
... keep it short. use keywords and then we'll be able to discuss later on each point.

Next step, the Methodology

EricVelleman: i will not be present next week. i will send the TOC around somewhere tomorrow. we could use 2 weeks of list discussions (skip next meeting).

shadi: let's keep next week call. we'll see how things evolve on the list.
... we have collected public methodologies that exists. now might be a good time to look at this again and see what fit's our requirements, what doesn't.

<vivienne> sounds good - I've been collecting quite a set of literature that I'm happy to contribute

Any other business

EricVelleman: any other business?

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/

shadi: just a little reminder about "Website Accessibility Metrics" that hopefully will have output that we could use as input.

EricVelleman: anyone of us going to that symposium on the 5th december 2011?

shadi: anyone is invited to submit a paper and present existing work.

EricVelleman: calls it a wrap 5 minutes before end! ;)

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/10/25 18:30:09 $