WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

14 Jun 2012


See also: IRC log


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


Questionnaire https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltf_q01/

shadi: let's take the 2nd agenda item first.

<shadi> questionnaire results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltf_q01/results

eric: questionnaire - great discussion on the list
... 1. okay with everyone (who responded)

2. will add comment from Kerstin

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltf_q01/results#x2614

peter: doc id 25 - evaluator name - a problem for some commercial organizations.

eric: will clarify with kerstin
... doc id 45 - Sample size - will come back to that later.
... everyone needs to fill out the questionnare - after the call today

<vivienne> I think the questionnaire is a great idea, Eric.

detlev: add the 3 questions from the email thread today - techniques

<aurelien_levy> sorry being late

<Detlev> ta

<vivienne> I'm fine with 10

<korn> NOt a problem.

<MartijnHoutepen> no problem

eric: is the number of questions okay?

Sarah: +1

<Detlev> ok

<mike_elledge> +1

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0056.html

shadi: link is a summary of the email threads. comment 5 - let's try to close this today.

<Detlev> someonme creates an echo . loudspeaker on?

shadi: doesn't recommend adding the email questions about techniques into this doc.

<Detlev> fine

<richard> +1

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltf_q01/results#x2614

eric: most people accepted the proposed resolutions. can we assume that they are closed?

<Ryladog> +1

<Kerstin> +1

<Kerstin> sorry

shadi: kerstin comment 25 about having a named person. proposed solution: either the person's name or the name of the organization.

kerstin: without knowing the name or organization who did the testing, it will be impossible to tell who did the evaluation.

<shadi> [[Evaluator

<shadi> The person, team of people, organization, in-house department, or other entity responsible for carrying out the evaluation]]

kerstin: the name is important. what kind of privacy issues are there.

eric: people inside the company may not want to be named. This is the example from Oracle.

<Detlev> echo again - loudspeaker on?

<korn> Difficult to hear Alistair. Perhaps problem with speakerphone?

alistair: emailed answer to questions on the email thread. wants them in the disposition of comments.
... lots of emails going around. good discussion, but not everyone can read everything that's been written.
... read the emails closely before responding. :-)

<MartijnHoutepen> :-)

<Detlev> there is a queue..

eric: will add questions into the online disposition document.

peter: evaluator being a person or organization question - why do you want the name of the person included? We are not taking a position that the review needs to be done by a 3rd party. Putting in the company name seems sufficient.

kerstin: the two aspects have a connection. for example, when testing a website, how can it be proven that it was an independent evaluation? need an independent second tester.

<agarrison> Alistair: My point was for Eric to not add Shadi's summarised questions into the disposition - rather that we read all supporting emails from the list when we come to debate the 1e question which Eric has already included in the disposition.

eric: there is a difference between somebody being independent and being from a third party. could be someone else from the same organization, but still independent.

kerstin: doesn't agree, people from the same company could be biased.

<korn> Is it a requirement of EvalTF and the charter for this work that the evaluation be independent? I thought that was out of scope of the methodology itself. So long as the independence (or lack thereof) is clear in the report, that should be enough.

eric: evaluators don't need to be from a third party to be independent.

<shadi> [[this document supports conformance evaluation in different contexts including self-assessment and third-party assessment of websites]]

shadi: we are going around in circles, and the context of the document is important.

<shadi> [[Evaluator - The person, team of people, organization, in-house department, or other entity responsible for carrying out the evaluation]]

shadi: evaluators are actually entities carrying our the evaluation.
... could add clarification regarding in-house evaluators being independent.
... responding to alistair's comment - propose that people send specific proposals or change requests for discussions.

katie: we don't need to identify an individual.

eric: could have legal ramifications.

alistair: have to try to find out where people are coming from with regard to these questions and comments. garbled line....

kerstin: we have two types of evaluators: freelancers and organizations. freelancers have to give their name, but organizations are not held to the same standard.

<Detlev> echo

eric: can we close the other comments?

<Kerstin> and it's a matter of transparency

shadi: recommends closing the entire set of comments.

sarah: +1 for closing comments
... refresh your browsers on the questionnaire - several people have filled it out while we've been on the call.

shadi: there are many more than two types of evaluators. we have set the scope to be broad. not in our charter to prefer one method over another.

<agarrison> Putting your name is an issue of personal liability - a freelance should have protection through their own business insurances, a company as an entity should also have insurance - but putting an employees name could leave the employee personally exposed. So I don't think a person's name is necessary.

eric: will consider this questionnaire items closed.
... will take comments from email and proposed resolutions and add them into the next questionnnaire.
... 10 items in questionnaire okay?

<vivienne> I think 10 is a good number

<Detlev> no close the 7

<Kathy> I think no more than 10

10 or so seems to be a good number of questions.

mike: asks a question about id/pw for getting into questionnaire. it's on the irc website.

eric: closing the call 10 minutes early.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/06/18 07:06:26 $