WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

06 Sep 2012


See also: IRC log


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


Updated Editor Draft

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904

updated Editor Draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904

<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff


VC: sent a couple of grammar and typos
... but otherwise looks fabulous
... still things to discuss later
... but good to put out for comments
... looking really good

EV: have things in the list to discuss
... also some things came in today
... will discuss after publication

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32


<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step5b

EV: changes title to include "According to this Methodology"
... also added to the "Methodology Requirement 5.b"
... also no mention of comitment to repair now
... also added a review note to get more input on this section

DF: maybe good compromise but slighly confusing to talk about accessibility statements and conformance claims
... maybe the only difference is that we don't evaluate all pages
... think OK to go out for now but not very clear right now

EV: have an issue on the sampling section
... may impact this section too
... will be good to see what we get from the public

<MartijnHoutepen> me too

<korn> Eric - others can hear me...

PK: may have a suggestion

<korn> Prefer "Provide an Accessibility Evaluation Conformance Statement"

PK: but OK to go out for now if needed

<korn> Or: "Provide an Accessibility Evaluation Statement"

EV: WCAG WG was rather sceptical to the use of the word conformance

<Detlev> better that version! without conformance

PK: does not include "conformance"
... accessibility *evaluation* statement rather than accessibility statement

<Detlev> Shadi; likes it

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<Detlev> Shadi: Since Peter was OK for not changing before the thing goes out as draft, it may stay? (not sure...)

<Kathy> +1

<vivienne> +1

<Liz> +1

<Detlev> fine

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<Mike> +1

[[Provide Accessibility Evaluation Statement]]

[[Provide an Accessibility Evaluation Statement (Optional)]]

<ericvelleman> +1

<Detlev> ffine

RESOLUTION: Provide an Accessibility Evaluation Statement (Optional)

PK: also need to change throughout the document accordingly

<Detlev> looks ok

Section 5

<Kathy> fine


<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<ericvelleman> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<MoeKraft> +1

<vivienne> +1

<Mike> +1

<Liz> +1

EV: changed title of section 5 to remove "conformance" to avoid ambuity with WCAG conformance

<korn> "The evaluation carried out conforms with this methodology as per 5. Conformance with this Methodology;" should then become: "The evaluation carried out IS BASED ON this methodology as per 5. APPLICATION OF this Methodology;"

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG

<korn> This is the first bullet under 3.5.2 Step 5.b

PK: need to remove "conform" from the first bullet in section 3.5.2

<Detlev> yes, makes sense

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG

SAZ: editor discretion on term for "conforms" - maybe not "based on"

PK: fine, just need to remove "conforms"

WCAG WG comments

EV: changed "Requirements" to "Methodology Requirements"
... framing it to this methodology
... changes to Abstract and Introduction
... tried to clarify what the methodology is and isn't more precisely
... added links to the issues and disposition of comments from review notes
... tried to get the framing more in shape

<Detlev> agree

<Kathy> agree

<vivienne> agreed

<MartijnHoutepen> agree

<Tim> agree

<Liz> agree

<Sarah_Swierenga> agree

EV: need to discuss comments #6 and #9 with commenter
... #6 is about requirements that refer to other sub-requirements
... would like to explore this in more detail later on

DF: the second diagram doesn't seem to add much
... doesn't harm either but not as helpful as the first

EV: difficult to describe because of that!

VC: not sure need any arrows
... could just show the sequence

EV: the idea was to show that it isn't necessarily a sequence but some level of iteratively

VC: how about life-cycle diagram

DF: mostly linear with some exceptions
... but would you go back between steps 4 and 5?
... think either need to identify what the arrows mean or get rid of them

VC: how about a flowchart?

EV: like the idea
... only initial diagram
... could improve it later

<Detlev> Shadi: Commenting on diagram - diagram meets its purpos of triggering discussion, is just a first draft to be improved upon

<Detlev> Shadi: finds comments useful - WCAG WG also suggested a workflow diagram

<Detlev> Shadi: if anyone wants to imprtove of it visually, feel invited to contribute

<Kathy> I can work on that

<Detlev> Shadi: the aim is just to give an overview

<Sarah_Swierenga> fine with draft diagram for now +1 - I think it's important to have a visual here to draw attention to the process.

KW: I can take a first stab at that

<scribe> ACTION: Kathy to work on workflow diagram for Section 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-eval-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Kathy

<Kathy> kwahlbin i think

<scribe> ACTION: kwahlbin to work on workflow diagram for Section 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-eval-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Work on workflow diagram for Section 3 [on Kathleen Wahlbin - due 2012-09-13].

EV: other comments on this September 4 version?

<Sarah_Swierenga> This latest draft reads well!

DF: want to take up the numbering issue
... simulataneous numbers and letters

<kerstin> it's me

<kerstin> I have some issues, I'll send via mail

<kerstin> ok, i type


<Detlev> Shadi: Open new issue: numbering

<kerstin> I don't agree with calling it "standardized approach", think approach is ok

<Detlev> Shadi: standardized approach was removed

<kerstin> I'm also still unsatisfied with not adressing quality criteria

<kerstin> sorry?

<kerstin> yes

<vivienne> yes

<Detlev> Shadi:can be changed to common approach

<Detlev> fine

<Liz> Yes

<MartijnHoutepen> yes

<Kathy> ok

<kerstin> common is not ok. it could be "common" if someone uses it

[[section 1.2: change "standardized approach" to "common approach"]]

SS: common to whom?

<korn> +1 to "Systematic"

SS: systematic?

<Detlev> systematic sounds OK

<Tim> I like systematic

SS: consistency angle of "standardized" is nice

<kerstin> I would agree with systematic

<Liz> Unified approach

PK: slight plurality for "systematic"?

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 systematic

SS: sounds ok

<Detlev> fine for me

<Liz> +1

<kerstin> +1 systematic

<Kathy> ok

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<MoeKraft> +1

<ericvelleman> +1

<vivienne> +1

<Tim> +1

RESOLUTION: change "standardized approach" to "systematic approach"

<Detlev> Shadi: Theere was the issue of goodnesds criteria that Kerstin raised


<Detlev> Shadi: we have opened an issue on goodness criteria and objectivity

EV: several open things
... goodness criteria, sampling approach, ...
... to come back to after publication
... will be discussing some during the review period too

<Detlev> Shadi: yes, ask, should bwe explicit in the minutes

Agreement for Publication as a Working Draft

<vivienne> +1

<Liz> Yes

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 for publication

<Detlev> yes, go ahead

<ericvelleman> agree

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<Tim> yes

<Kathy> yes, fine

<MoeKraft> +1

<Detlev> Eric, may be ask for objections?


<korn> +1 for publication

<kerstin> want to think about it till tomorrow

<Mike> +1 for publication

RESOLUTION: Eval TF agrees with publishing the dociment as an updated WD (pending the discussed changes)

<Detlev> Shadi: TF is not a decision-making body, the WCAG WG has to approve it

EV: need approval from WCAG WG
... then all the discussions will start
... thank you all for attending

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Kathy to work on workflow diagram for Section 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-eval-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: kwahlbin to work on workflow diagram for Section 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-eval-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/09/15 15:01:07 $