WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

29 Mar 2012


See also: IRC log


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


draft is online

EV; Clean up steps 4 and 5, public comments until the 27th of April

EV: I have seen comments come in from the EC, and some positive

I have gotten a number of comments here, they have been exceedingly positive in Australia

<MartijnHoutepen> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Mar/0070.html


<vivienne> Eric, where can we see these comments?

EV: Folks can respond on an official mailing list which is useful

<shadi> [[please note the public commenting list to send comments to (to avoid clutter on our discussion list): public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org]]

EV: We will note all the comments and will put them in a tracking system

<shadi> [[archives are public: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-em-comments/]]

next steps

<vivienne> sounds good

<Kathy> sounds good

<Elle> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<Kerstin> +1

<ericvelleman> first work on adding info and then work on comments after the public period

EV: We will call it an editor draft again for the next month we will put in as much content as we can, and then after the April period end we will work on the comments

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/

<vivienne> that's fine

EV: I will start adding content to this draft, starting with parts 4 and 5

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<richard_> +1


<ssirois> +1

<Kerstin> +1

EV: I already had alot of text for 4 and 5, but I took it out, so I can start with that, and I would like you to shoot at it
... Step 4; Auditing of Sample
... You would audit that selected sample. How to use techniques in step 4b
... Do you need to add accessibility support in the evaluation process?
... Archiving of web pages - is this a good idea to discuss. And if you do, how do you do this
... I want to start on non-optional items in Parts 4 and 5
... Accessibility Statements samples that we saw very different. So we will go with trying to provide some guidance
... Suggestions for Repairs: Machine readable reporting is important
... Commments on step 4 on Auditing?

Vivienne: When I start I try to understand the purpose of the site, is when we come to the use cases, what are the critical aspects

Viv: Start with the promary purpose of the site and build the use cases, can you actually checking for them with AT

EV: It is difficult to make the use case. Best to use the most common use case

Viv: Again, starting with the purpose of what the user needs to do on the site

Kathy: The next step is auditing, what are the different ways to go through the actual sample, use cases, user stories, WCAG step by step

<vivienne> I tend to do both checking all the WCAG 2 points, as well as making sure all use cases can be accomplished

Kathy: Depends on what type of what the development process, I have to customise to my clients and how they work

Richard: I agree with Kathy, I think we need to stress the efficiency of the testing
... I am actually concerned that we need to ensure that users can perform all of the functions of the site

EV: If you look at use cases, what way we choose things in Step 3
... Anything else?
... Techniques, is there anyone that has techniques. We have said that the techniques are not the success criteria

Viv: We have to come back to the knowledge of WCAG here, they have to understand the techique and Failures of WCAG. Maybe we need to go into deal
... Maybe a how to use the WCAG 2 techniques

EV: To what level?

<Sarah_Swierenga> I agree with Vivienn's comments about evaluators WCAG2.0 expertise.

Kerstin: Techniques we use, we identify proplems, thenb we propose actions, and then the techniques for that set we use
... It depends on what the clients wants. Some want Pass/Fail, others want more

EV: We cover that in Step 2

Kerstin: We have this in the Appendix examplke 1, 2 and 3

<ssirois> I would look at techniques as possible solutions or lines of thought we can propose to problems we encountered on the website regarding the success criterias.

Tim: I am calling in remotely

EV: Step 4 audit, how to use the technique

<ssirois> s/throught/throat

EV: Accessibility Support Step 4c - but does this mean that we ask them to use AT?

<vivienne> I use NVDA

<vivienne> my clients want to know if people can use their screen readers

EV: It depends on the level of detail the client wants. How do you cover accessibility support. Vivienna you use NVDA, do you use that for a tool

Viv: I use a screenreader to test the content. It is a good thing to do using AT during your testing. I like to use it to verify my findings

<shadi> [[sidenote: accessibility support does not necessarily mean testing with AT but ensuring that a technique works with a set of target ATs (this information could come from an accessibility support database or such); this is, however, different to the question if ATs should be part of the testing process or not]]

<Sarah_Swierenga> Mike and I always use JAWS, NDVA, ZoomText, and various items, e.g., color contrast, linearization, heading structure, field labels, from the Web Accessibility Toolbar to conduct a manual review of the pages.

Kathy: Always use JAWS, NVDA, Window Eyes, ZoomText for everything

EV: Doesn't this take a lot of time?

<ssirois> My first audit step is to go through the page with my keyboard, a screen reader and i usualy surf in text mode... so that i'm aware of possible issues while auditing with my set of "questions".

Ryladog: I use it everytime

<vivienne> I agree, it is essential

Sarah: We always do a manual review with keyboard and WAT, WAVE, but we never send anything out the door with NVDA, JAWS, ZoomText

I use DOM inspection tools before using the AT tools

ViV: AT is usually a part of the evaluation

<Sarah_Swierenga> clarification: we don't send anything out "without" using JAWS, NDVA, and ZoomText to conduct a manual evaluation.

EV: Do we always use AT. Are the techniques that we use Acccessibility Supported
... That raises the question do we still need to be sure the techniques are Accessibility Supported

<vivienne> I don't think you can make a statement about the accessibility of a page without testing with AT

MH: We only use the AT for things that we cannot test from the source code

Kerstin: We should add a note concerning intranet, AT must be used

<Kerstin> Ryladog intranet was meant

EV: Next Question - how do you report this?
... I will get with Shadi and Martin, working on 4 and 5, and send some things to the mailing list
... The Audit will not be difficult, but reporting will be more difficult


EV: Please join in on the discussion on the mailing list this week

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/30 00:31:17 $