WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

Eric: Welcome, we have some new members, Peter Korn, Moe,

Moe: I work at IBM accessibility center, consulting, training & testing accessibility

Peter: Oracle accessibility architect, originally from Sun, interested in WCAG/W3C and section 508

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=48225&public=1

Eric: looking at public comments mail archive, only 2 received

E: maybe more to the end of april
... If we have a lot of comments we will need a system to work on the comments, if it is not to much we will use a plain html table
... we will start working on document as is, after 27th april we will process comments
... hope to have a new draft in 2 months
... new editor draft not yet up, need more input to fill section 4 and 5, discussion on the list on section headings

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

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-WCAG-EM-20120327/#step4

E: discussion on assistive technology on the list, input needed on step 4a check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases

Katie: start by identifying primary use case, there may be more purposes beyond that,
... after primary use case define broadest variety

shadi: step4a relates to 1d, is it internal or public or mobile site, also relates 2b where we select key functionalities

Katie: refer to those sections

<shadi> ak peter

Peter: what does use case mean when we shift from website to webapplication? is styling in an online texteditor a use case?

Katie: could you phrase this as a question in the steps?

Peter: i am worried on how this translates to webapplications, some accessibility issues are less important than others, but can be critical in (non-)conformance
... maybe reporting could include impact of problems

Mike: should we be considering different use scenarios?

<Detlev> 'scenario' could be quite confusing - sounds close to 'use case'

E: @mike could you elaborate on the difference between scenarios and use cases on the list

Kathy: user stories more important in agile development model, we need to be careful to explain all flavours of user stories

shadi: I like this direction. To go back to Peters case: accessibility issues are the same on websites or webapplications,
... we shouldn't make the difference, up to manager to read into findings

peter: features of an application are different then the distuingishment between use cases,

Eric: would be interesting for evaluators to have a method to define primary use case

Detlev: issue on claiming conformance using this methodology, similar problem arises when sampling

D: all features of an application are part of the use case of using the application
... I think it is benificial to claim conformance while not being totally conformant, if you point out the issues

Eric: not up to evaluator to decide if error is important, this is up to the manager

D: you will then never reach conformance

Katie: we need to identify what was accessible and what wasn't, conformance claim will point to what has been evaluated

K: dependent of company to say: we will be compliant or not. For websites it is important to be precise

D: can you then leave out parts of the website?
... in a application you couldn't conform because there are too much options to choose

Katie: yes, if you don't evaluate the whole page you can't claim anything

Peter: some website parts are highly dynamics, different data may give different pages and different outcomes of an evaluation
... If the application is too big, the application may be changed while testing

Eric: we have to define boundaries in dynamic websites/applications
... we will focus on a ready product, which we will evaluate

<Ryladog> Sorry have to leave early

Peter: in reporting we can introduce terms/adjectives separate from conformance (f.e. substantial conformance)

<Detlev> thins something like 'substantial conformance' would be a useful concept

shadi: if in testing things change, how can determine accessibility, in the documentation y/n is a minimum, but there is optional additional performances scores (section 5d)

eric: new methodology will be up soon (tuesday),
... more discussion on wrinkles proposed by Peter