WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

08 Mar 2012


See also: IRC log


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


New Methodology version

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306

<Mike_Elledge> +1 for the new document!

ericvelleman: New methodoly revision (mostly done by shadi). Section 3 is now more step based.

<Kathy> +1 I like it

ericvelleman: What are the comments on that new version? Objections, suggestions?

vivienne: Really likes the new flow of the document. Easier to understand. Just sent a couple of emails before this meeting.

<shadi> [[Note: When a website is being re-evaluated, it is sometimes useful for comparison to include a portion of web pages from the sample selected for the previous evaluation. However, the majority of web pages should be freshly selected to provide an accurate representation of the entire website.]]

<vivienne> can you take those that I've written already?

vivienne: Step 3.b, did we agree on adding new pages to the already selected pages or did we want to start on a fresh base? I think we have aggreed to add pages to the selected page. We might have to rephrase a little.

ericvelleman: Yes. We have aggreed on that and we shall rephrase.

<shadi> [[change "majority" to "freshly"]]

Kathy: I agree that this is a much better draft now.
... I feel like we kind of repeat ourselves in 3.a,b and c. Maybe we should tighten things a little?

ericvelleman: Actually, we did try to make those different but if it seems to have overlaps, we shall review that.

<shadi> [[repitition between 3.a and 3.c regarding pages relevant for people with disabilities]]

ericvelleman: If you see anything that is "already" there, just make sure to point it out.

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Mar/0016.html

Kerstin: Two major points that i have already sent through email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Mar/0016.html)
... On point 1e and 4b, i have submitted my comments.

<scribe> scribe: (note) read through previous URL for more details on Kerstin's thoughts.

shadi: i think that techniques are a good tool to "prove" the conformity declaration.

Kerstin: i think there is a big missunderstanding worldwide on the mandatory aspect of applied techniques for conformity.

shadi: would it be ok if we rephrase the draft to make sure that it is understood that the techniques are not checkpoints for conformity.

<Mike_Elledge> "recommend use relevant WCAG 2.0 techniques or their equivalent"

Kerstin: yes. it is important that the techniques are not looked as the ONLY way to achieve conformity.

Mike_Elledge: If the techniques for WCAG 2.0 are not correct, they should be revised because we really want to point to those techniques (not reinventing the wheel) for our methodology.
... the step by step process is really great.

shadi: we have to be carefull that only the techniques published by the w3c are valid. there are great techniques out there.
... it is bogus to think that if none of the techniques match on a website, the website is not conform.

<vivienne> Shadi, could you give us an example?

shadi: we should not add to this missunderstanding with our document.

<shadi> [[add "resources from W3C" in 1.3]]

Section 2.1 Scope of Applicability

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306#applicability

<vivienne> I think that 2.1 covers our discussion well.

<Kerstin> just 19? ;-)

vivienne: i like the examples. they are selfexplicit and covering a large part of our discussions. maybe add a couple more examples, to make sure to cover all our discussions.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306#step1a

<shadi> [[consider a link forward from 2.1 to Step 1.a]]

<Sarah_Swierenga> I like that the section emphasizes that "The methodology defined by this document applies to full, self-enclosed websites...." and "...the methodology always applies to a full website without exclusions or omissions of website parts...."

ericvelleman: by using the methodology, we might find out that we need more examples. we'll be able to address that in time.

Section 3 Evaluation Procedure

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306#procedure

ericvelleman: bringing light to each steps found in section 3.
... i suggess that we concentrate on steps 1,2 and 3 for this week and then go further.
... does anyone think we are missing steps, or having too much steps?

Kerstin: i think we are missing the number of pages.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306#step3b

ericvelleman: In step 3.b, we are suggesting having at least two distinct web pages. And we precise further more a little later.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306#elemental

<shadi> [[Fundamental web pages that are relevant to the entire website. This includes the homepage, login page, and other entry pages, and, where applicable, the sitemap, contacts, site help, legal information, and similar web pages that are typically linked from all web pages (usually from the header, footer, or navigation menu of a web page).]]

<MartijnHoutepen> sorry, one of my headsets is broken, the other one empty

vivienne: we should recall "elemental web pages" in step three.

ericvelleman: we could reference it more directly. but it might looks like a repetition of section 1.4

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306#terms

shadi: regarding the number of pages. step 3 of section 3 will suffer a lot of revisions before it actually works. but the approach is more "dynamic". even in very large websites, heavily template-driven, maybe just a handfull of pages might be ok, eventhough we have thousands of pages.
... but in a small website, authored by a lot of contributors, might actually need more pages in the sample.
... we need much more refinement as we go, but do we agree on the approach?

Mike_Elledge: yes, the approach is good.
... are we restricting the review to entire pages or could we sample just a feature in a page?

<Kerstin> I like the steps so far ver y much, ok,.. except Step 4.b

ericvelleman: the idea (as in wcag2) is to evaluate the whole page.

shadi: lets say that one of the page contains a video (which is a unique feature of that page). that page would end up in the basket of the pages to evaluate. we previously had concensus that we do not need to re-evaluate the navigation on all pages.

<Mike_Elledge> Thanks!

ericvelleman: any other remarks on the document, until step 4?

Next Steps

<vivienne> I think it will be good to publish this as you suggest.

ericvelleman: would the group agree that we try to publish this version as the first draft? anyone have trouble with this?

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/WCAG-EM20120306/

<Kerstin> I would like to decide after the changes

shadi: i have prepared a web based survey for everyone to add additionnal comments to the current state of the document.
... things that must be lookup up before publishing the draft.
... the survey will go until next wednesday.
... the two parents WG will recieve the survey as well. (since both are responsible for this task force)

ericvelleman: we shall have a "final" version of the first draft (which will be published).

shadi: we are in search of our first consensus on the draft. editor's draft does not represent the group (per say), but the public draft is representing a concensus of the group's ideas on the methodology.

<Kerstin> thanks shadi and eric for all the work

ericvelleman: let's work on this on the comming week. thank you.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/13 09:00:44 $