WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

12 Apr 2012

See also: IRC log


Martijn, Kathy, Don, Liz, Eric, Peter, Moe, Mike, Sarah, Kerstin, Tim
Shadi, Vivienne, Alistair


Eric: New editor version available
... There is still only two comments on the mailing list. If you are on social media, please point people to the document

New comments

Eric: Here is the new version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/. Eric will work on the use cases section and will include items from this meeting
... Step 4 - tried to keep the text as short as possible. Requirements has been added

Peter: Requirement 4c Does the accessibility supported techniques is that connected to tools used in 4a

Eric: It is all connected to previous sections including step 2 & 3 and 4.

Peter: Wondering if there should be a reference in 4c to the tools used

Eric: recording the tools allows others to reproduce the results

<kerstin> thanks Martijn

<MartijnHoutepen> no problem

Peter: Should we give people more guideance on the tools used

Eric: The tools include browsers, assistive technology and other plugins. This would be defined in 1d. In step 2, you include pages

Peter: the editor note should be included in the text (4d)

Eric: will add this

Mike: We should not telling people what tools they should use for evaluation but tools used should be recorded. It is covered under WCAG 2.0

Eric: we should record what was used, this is in step 4e
... it is up to the evaluator to decide what tools they will use
... Is anything missing from these steps

Peter: Archiving section - web application may need a lot more information. You cannot archive URLS. Order of entry and data entered is important
... More information will need to be recorded - what they did and what happened

Eric: This is 4d

Eric - Can you get screen shots?

Peter - Good idea but it may not be possible in all situations. Should not be required

Eric - How much description should we have?

Peter: Not much more, just a bit more about steps

Mike: It will depend on what you are evaluation and client expectations. May be just a list of pages checked. If there is complicated steps then it will vary

Eric: Let's go back to 4a
... Will work in the details from the mailing list in 4a

Sarah: Do we need screen shots from all browsers and conditions?

Eric: This is optional. Not sure what is the minimal information needed for recording

Peter: In 1d we tell users to select the minimum set of web browsers and assistive technology. We may want to say as selected in rather than defined in

Moe: Caution the use of screenshots. Low vision users find these difficult

Eric: We should have more than just screen shots and maybe we should have steps so that screen shot is complementary

Sarah: screen shots should be supplemental. Really need the steps and what you entered
... To what extend does this need to be replicable

Eric: The results shoudl be comparable
... so it is what is needed to accomplish this goal

Peter: Not likely

Eric: We need to include this in section 4

<Sarah_Swierenga> - not likely - and if archiving is optional, then it wouldn't be possible to replicate at all.

Eric: what is needed to make it replicable

<kerstin> don't have any idea about what "Check pages from the sample using the specified sets or sources of techniques" exactly means

Mike: matter of degree, people will be reluctant to list the protocol followed
... how explicit does this need to be. Some of this is subjective

Eric: started defining a flow chart but there are so many possibities. Hard to define

Martijn: if need to be replicable you would need to record all the details

Sarah: If it is optional then it will be ignored by most evaluators. All about how to do a WCAG 2.0 evaluation. This is time consuming plus gives other the inside view of how to do the work

Eric: Not convinced that we should not have more details
... what about saying we need to review the complete process

<Mike_Elledge> Scribe's perogative? :^)

Kathy: could give some options for approaches

Eric: should we give people more detail on how to use WCAG 2.0

Tim: are there principles of auditing

Eric: Can we come up with an ideal set of steps

Sarah: this may be the place where we can talk about automated tools, keyboard only etc.

Eric: Depends on context and use cases defined
... we need high-level principles

Kerstin: This is important. Some items better to check later

Eric: this is why maybe having a step by step approach. Some items can be easier to do later

Kerstin: we should try to define it

Eric: I will try to add this
... send examples through the list
... will start working on Step 5 - by Monday will have text in the section

Next editor draft

Eric: Any other issues?

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/04/13 12:14:32 $