WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

21 Jun 2012

See also: IRC log


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


Eric: First discussion - cane we go to agenda pont 3 then to questionaire 2
... Change to person, if anon use organisation

<agarrison> What about person(s) or organisation

Viviene better if a number of people are involved - a company may not want to list all evaluators, or make name available for security. I think I agree with Peter - Should be Person or Organisation

<shadi> [[I suggest just saying "Evaluator", and linking that to the term definition -- maybe it is not anyonymous but not a single person either]]

Martin: Why not just say "Identuify the evaluator"

<shadi> +1 to Matijn

Martin: This would cover all situations that migh occur

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#evaluator

Eric: Wouls that mean defining term evaluator

Peter: Might be better to add "person or organistaion" in parenthasis

<vivienne> in the document: EvaluatorThe person, team of people, organization, in-house department, or other entity responsible for carrying out the evaluation.

Korn: The company commisioning the report would know who did it and any questions would be directed to the site owner in the first place

<Detlev> it happens!

Martin: Duscussion about why we need to identify evaluator

Eric: Can we move to Item 4 change wording to reflect option to evaluate whole website
... Lets walk though the whoe questionnaire 2 ?

<MartijnHoutepen> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq2/results

<MartijnHoutepen> ?

Peter: ... Just want to make it clearer - if the resolution is just to modify language - OK bit not a full overhaul
... I trust Eric to suggest better wording

Eric: Thanks - Shall I do a proposal

<MartijnHoutepen> ietm 4

<MartijnHoutepen> item 4

Alistair: If you say must check all pages it would be very difficult to do. I think we should leave the text as it is

Peter: If you are going to do only a sample - what is the verification.

Eric: I think I need to make it clearer - let me take it back and reqork

<vivienne> +1


<MoeKraft> +1

<korn> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

Eric: ID 7 - Perhaps we can just make the text clearer

<korn> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

Eric: Will clarify and ask for comments

<Detlev> sonds good

Eric ID 17 - was OK

Eric: ID 18 - I will make changes and everyone can review and comment

<Detlev> fine

Peter: Please connect change to document ID

Eric: Where to find it in the document is included

Detlev: Can we simplify the process of checking and changing. Can we use the Questionnaire

Eric: Every comment has an ID which part of teh file on-line
... I make changes as we work throough it

Peter: It looks as though Eric has to do a lot of extra work. Can we parcel out some tasks of initial drafting ?

<Detlev> @ Peter: good suggestion

Eric: I get a small fee, but I will try to speed up more

Eric wil make suggested changes

Erid ID 20 we seem to agree

<shadi> [[I encourage people to put specific suggestions in the surveys or send them by mail at any time, for Eric to consider!]]

Eric: ID 28 - Role of evaluator, two peolpe who objected

Peter: Independent might exclude internal evaluator. Corporarion should be able to do it themselves

Detlev: If teh evaluator is clearly identified then teh relationship between the evaluator and teh site owner is clear.
... If it is clear and transparent it should be OK

Alistair: We should not say that third party is better than first psrty. We should think if we need independant - or would unbiased be better

Peter: If a self-evaluation then the evaluator would be named and identified so anyone can make a value judgement
... I don't see a need for any adjectives here. If it is transparent then readers would know.

<Mike_Elledge> I meant +1

<agarrison> Agree with Peter

Viviene: I prefer scrapping the word independent. but the relationship of the evaluator should be clear.

<Detlev> agree etirely with that

<Detlev> fine

Peter: The results could be used in a variety of ways. In practice the report will say "here are the problems". It is not part of teh methodology to state that it must be public
... do we agree that we do not an adjective?

Vote Now

<korn> +1

<ericvelleman> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<vivienne> +1

<agarrison> +1

+1 No adjective

<MoeKraft> +1

<Detlev> better put in questionnaire..

<Tim> +1

That seems clear!

<agarrison> 2mins to tackle 3 questionnaire issues!

Detlev: Maybe Kestin has a view - so it should be on questionnaire - but I am happy so far

Eric ID 40

Detlev: I agree with what Shadi said in his comment

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<ericvelleman> +1

<vivienne> +1

Eric: Do more peolpe agree with Shadi

<MoeKraft> +1

<korn> +1

<Tim> +1

<Detlev> Too complex to discuss now

Eric: ID41
... I will launch the two outstanding questions again (we are getting out of time!)
... Is that OK

Alistair: Maybe you can formulate it different

Eric: will do quest and revised draft

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/06/21 15:38:12 $