WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

02 Feb 2012

See also: IRC log


Martijn, Kathy, Samuel, Shadi, Liz, Richard, Kerstin, Don, Eric, Vivienne, Sarah, Elle, Mike, Tim
Alistair, Detlev, Emmanuelle


Eric - welcome. There was an overview mail sent. If you have not answered, please send your responses

Eric: Discussion around any sample and the scope of the sample. The comments will be added to the methodology. Currently methodology states whole websites so that will be changed.
... Error margin will also be removed
... Will create a new version this weekend and will send it out on Monday
... Agenda point 2 - changes to the methodology; added citation code, UM to the references

<vivienne> can you put the link to the last version up?

Eric: changes are color coded

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120125.html

<vivienne> thanks, Eric

Eric: Agenda 3 - discussion on procedure to express scope
... scope of the website will be added to the document; will not be limited to the full website
... there could be pages that were not in the sample where they do not fully comply but it is possible to get a representative sample
... Any thoughts on this and the overview?

<Mike_Elledge> +1

Vivienne: Would a web application be considered a website?

Eric: good questions, don't have an answer.

<Mike_Elledge_> Seems like they would be treated the same way...

kerstin: not sufficient to just check pages. Also need to check elements. Important because of the different editors

Eric: already building this into the document
... single elements should be reviewed

ssirois: We don't have to evaluate the full website. The representative sample needs to cover the different types of contents. Owner of the website should conform for the full site. Bank example may require access to special services - these people may not want to use the full website so it is ok for sub-section of the website

<ssirois> agree with Elle that it could be a pitfall that the owner is responsible for choosing the sample.

Elle: when we are talking about the scope defining scope by the website owner; they may abuse this.
... we should be clear about expectations for defining scope

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask for a definition of "website" as a self-enclosed entity, which could be an application or a subsite, rather than to say "portion of a website"

shadi: agrees with Elle, portions of a website may be better stated as self-enclosed entity; WCAG can already evaluate pages; we need to go further

<vivienne> I like the phrase, Shadi

Eric: need to create definition

Richard: Shadi said what I wanted to say; portions should be removes; likes "self-enclosed entity"

<ssirois> for the record, my point was that i do agree that a representative sample is OK for conformance evaluation as long as the sample is representative in quantity AND quality. We must be able to trust the website owner that if the representative sample is conform, the rest should be. The bank example submitted on the list is dangerous. We must not use that representative sample in order to develop only an "accessible sub-portion" of a whole. I'll develop and send my

Mike: what common terminology should be used to describe the conformance on a website. Text will help give understanding

Eric: will add this in and make notes about what was changed

vivienne: procedure to express the scope (new text in purple), would you be adding XML sitemap?

Eric: part of this question needs to be answered in reporting section. Pages should be recorded in the conformance claim
... What do you lead people to the pages?

Vivienne: what about screen capture

Eric: Anyone have an idea on how we can cover this?

Elle - can we attached use cases?

Elle: this defined the steps; use cases are built on activities and functions; will be a way of expressing the pages when URLs don't apply

richard: key ingredient is the scope statement needs to be clear: version, date should be included; URLs can change

<kerstin> +1

<ssirois> +1 with the precision brought up by richard on the scope

Sarah: agree with Elle; use cases can be helpful. This describes the task and path. Parts of pages should be included, this often has a name or nickname that can be included

Eric: Has enough to add to the document
... Sampling of pages; there are 3 categories: core, random; task-oriented

Eric: Non-random sample - should we take this out; do we need the core set of resources or should we have different scenarios (full website or portion)

sarah - helpful to leave it in; they should be doing the full website; we should be strongly communicating the full website

Kerstin: we should leave it in; webpage should be the rule; sections or portions should be marked as exceptions

ssirois: really likes the list of core resources. If something goes wrong, users will be able to contact the owner to complain.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to say that "self-enclosed entities" will still have some key features

<kerstin> +1 for the self-enclosed entities

Shadi: agree with previous speakers; avoid saying portions of website; say self-enclosed entities. We should add scenarios

Eric: let's work on this definition

Mike: helpful to make the distinction to look at the type of conformance claim; public facing portions vs sections of the site

Vivienne - likes the core resources; list can be used as the first resources; should be also use term landing page? - these are entry points

Vivienne: sections should be included and the landing pages define the start

<vivienne> yes, that's fine

Eric: theres could be many landing pages; self-enclosed entity could be this; landing pages would need to be defined as part of the conformance claim

<Sarah_Swierenga> Sorry, I need to sign-off now. Have a good week, everyone!

Eric: random resources is from UM; more work needs to be done on this; if you have time read the random sampling document. We will start a short discussion online
... we will not dive into this now; need to evaluate if this is relevant based on change of scope
... any questions on random section?

vivienne: when I am working on a random sample, try to check as many of the WCAG checkpoints - not just the similar pages
... needs to be as representative as possible

Eric: shadi will send minutes; eric will send new version on Monday and will send out new discussions

kerstin: concerned about the terminolgy used. Statistical terms being used have different meaning in our document - representative, sampling etc

Eric: will send documentation; has been checked by statistical people

Eric: thanks for joining. Look for the documents and see you next week

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/02/02 17:01:03 $