WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

10 Nov 2011


See also: IRC log


Shadi, Liz, Vivienne, Kathy, Katie, Amy, Eric, Samuel, Martjen, Kerstin, Wilco, Vincent, Tim
Detlev, Mike, Sarah, Alistair, Emmanuelle, Denis, Elle, Kostas


Table of Contents

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20111109.html

EV: Tried to add more explanantion for the Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0. Please try to review
... Want to publish before the end of the year
... We Want to be ready for WCAG and ERT to review
... I will try to captutre all by next Tues
... The send to WCAG as a First DRFAT

<kerstin> I'm fine with that

EV: Any Comments?

Kathy: Do we want to keep it general?

EV: Yes

Kathy: Do we want to re-arrange the order - did we do that?

EV: I thougth we agreed to do a split - but we will do that later

Vivienne: How are we editing individually?

EV: I will add the text for how to do it. Please send an emailk to the list with your comments

EV: Other questions about doc so far?

Kerstin: I don't understand the need for splitting the document

EV: We will not do that now. We will make that determination later
... Seperate documents may be a risk

Kerstin: I am very fine with not seperating it

... I will add. Please be a bit more specific in your comments. Hopefully will finish it on Tues and Shadi will be able to put the new Draft on Wed

<vivienne> that sounds fine to me, Eric

<kerstin> dont unterstand why?

EV: There are a number of versions. What about that Shadi?

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/

Shadi: There is a link for the latest internal verson
... from that you can always go back to the previous version

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20111109.html

Shadi: Eric will notify the list when there is a new draft, with a specific dedicated URI

Specific discussion

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10/#changes

Shadi: You can see the specs

EV: Specific discussion in the mil
... Section 7 needs much more work

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20111109.html#expertiseforevaluating

EV: Lets start with Section 6
... I have a short description (from the evaluation suite). We need to add text for using persons with disabilities. Any questions about section 6?

Vivienne: I think we need to spell ot out a bit more clearly for a person to be tasked as an expert. Difference between novice and expert
... You need a basic understanding of HTML, CSS, Code Validation, AT - we need to have a list in order to do a successful eval

EV: I agree, but there is already a nice description in the eval suite

Vincent: I want to point out that we can have a questions that need some expertise in order to give an answer
... We should explain that some questions need an expert and some do not
... I think we should offer a way for the people who are new to make a first step into this process

EV: Maybe we did not explain well enough between the full and the quick evaluation - so for people who do not have alot of skills - we should point them to the quick eval

Shadi: I agree with you and Vivienne

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/reviewteams.html#expertise

Shadi: Recommended Expertise
... For carrying out this methodology - use this list -
... This is still open
... It is not really clear what we are suggesting here

EV: I will provide information for people with less skills and a link

Shadi: Quoted text. Lets check with Shaun.
... Basde rwquirements - an evaluator with expertise

EV: Section 6.1
... Here I copied part of the Eval Suite
... Would this be enough - or do we need to be more specific or provide a link?

Vivienne: We wnat to link to other resources but we want people to feel that this is a reource. We should provide guidance on how to include different pefsons with disabilities

Amy: I actaully like the section the way it is. I don't think we should use numbers on how or who
... Examples might be good
... Should the text include "if you don't have the expertise. See here"

EV: I agree
... Skills for evaluator
... I will try to provide more freindly text

Kathy: Also, good to ask for feedback from current users as well as PWD
... Explain the more informal process - ask them for their feeedback

Vivienne: I agree with Amy - newer website ask for feedback from users

<AmyChen> I think it was Kathy

<AmyChen> +1 to what Kathy said for me too

Vivienne: If there is a link do you have suggestions

Shadi: linking out to existing resources, how much oveflap do we want
... I think what you have copied is good - the Eval Suite should be suplemental - the most content should be in the spec. I will talk with Shawn about what is best.

EV: I had thsat problem when writing this stuff
... I was unsure about rephrasing text that has already been well thought out. But i think the recommended expertise belongs here

Shadi: I understand the dilemma
... Short sentence and then link to resource
... Some amount of overlap may be necessary

Amy: I agree - lets not repeat what is in other document. We encourage using PWD and then link to resoucres

EV: I have ideas for the text. At least for the first part of Sections - add another subsection as Shadi proposed. Add more direct links
... Lets stop here at Section 6. Review Section 7 if the idea is clear. Anyone have any ideas?

Amy: I think it is a hard question - scope for full or partial product

EV: In the document we are talking about full websites

Amy: One could talk about what has been tested

EV: Maybe we should make that division in the document now?
... Maybe we should discuss later

Viveinne: are we eval the inernet, intranet, extranet, etc. They will have very different sets of requirements

Vivienne: Identify the number of levels, whether they are starting from a base URI and going three clicks form thrre etc

<shadi> [[Other target audiences of the Methodology include]] -> [[Other audiences who may benefit from the Methodology include]]

Shadi: I think there is a misunderstanding of the scope of the target audience. Maybe we need to change that in Section C

<vivienne> That sounds better to me, Shadi

Shadi: other audiences may benefit from....
... The scope for us is done completed website - not developing websites

EV: That would save us

<AmyChen> +1 to what Shadi said

<Kathy> +1

<Vincent_> +1

<vivienne> +1


<kerstin> +1 :-)

<Tim> +1

<ssirois> +1, new proposal is worded more on what i have understood of our agreement

Tim: Are we specifically excluding third party content? And, are we excluding open sources?
... 1.Are we specifically excluding third party and user-submitted content?
... 2> Colaborative content

Tim: Are we going ti include these two ?

EV: Not excluding
... It is something we will have to cover or look to WCAG

Shadi: This is a tough question. The website owner has to decide what the evaluation covers
... The EM will just doicuemnt is this part of the evaluation or not

Amy: 1. Other target audience. Not intended to be used for prodcuts in developement
... 2. Back to Tims question - some third party content we can't controll
... if accessible - we just warp it up - if there is a problem - we say that this contnet is not included in our conformance claim

Wilco: Must evaluate full website. Different projects with different team. Different report for different teams

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/11/14 08:18:35 $