WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

07 Feb 2013

See also: IRC log


Eric, Martijn, Kathy, Shadi, Liz, Detlev, Katie, Alistair, Peter, Mike, Moe, Sarah
Kostas, Vivienne


new editor draft

Eric we are getting closer to a new public draft

Eric now there is enough flesh for a trial run

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207

Eric please look at the document - there are remarks in the document where changes have been made

Eric - some of the remarks are objections, others just comments

Eric - There were a lot of remarks in Survey 8 - so changes have been incorporated

Eric - there are links to the survey from the document

<Detlev> ciuld you copy urls to Questionnaires, once again? - sorry

Eric - running through the document

Eric - there are a few notes, editor notes, notes for discussion etc

<MartijnHoutepen> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq8/results

Eric - look at the changes and see if you agree - we could do another survey to capture peoples responses

Eric - DOC has not had any changes, so this will be done at a later date

<ericvelleman> http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130128&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20130207

Eric - this is diff marked, so you can see what has been done in the past weeks

Eric - changes are explained above or belong the changed blocks

Eric - Red is removed, Green is what replaced what was removed, and Yellow is brand new

walkthrough and open issues

Eric - Agenda point 3, walkthough

Eric - for the current form I shall send round a survey

Shadi - Maybe we could try to combine this with the survey for approval for publication

Shadi - this would allow people to provide comments

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

Eric - this is still a draft

<Mike_Elledge> +1

Eric - shall we do an approval for publication survey?

Eric - we could send this round and asking for feedback by next week

Peter - is this long enough

Shadi - should be, a little tight but it would be ready before CSUN

Shadi - with a final round of work it could be done before CSUN

Eric - open issues diagram, and uniform accessibility support

Eric - new diagram created by group - but there were a few remarks about the arrows in the diagram

Eric - the current diagram is the one produced by Shadi

Eric - one comment was that in reporting we should only have one arrow going forward

Shadi - looking for a url for both images

<MartijnHoutepen> The old: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207#procedure

<Kathy> I have it

Shadi - come back to this point, and I shall try to find them

Eric - Uniform accessibility support

<MartijnHoutepen> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq7/results#x2586

Eric - on the survey number 7 - 12 people answered and 2 rejected it

<ericvelleman> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130207#step4b

Eric - we could drop the sentence requiring the uniform accessibility support

<ericvelleman> “For example, if one part of a website is accessible using one set of tools that is different from a set of tools that is needed to access another part of the same website, then the website is effectively not accessible for some users. Accessibility support needs to be uniform throughout a single website.”

Eric - this is the url to step 4b

Eric - we could try to repair the sentence

Eric - we could come back to it in the next version of the doc

Peter - As written this does not make sense

Peter - first question - what constitutes a set of tools

Eric - finger on the right place

Eric - Maybe we should put this off to a later stage

Eric - We could add this as an issue to come back to

Eric - For the moment we could drop this sentence

Detlev - It could read as the set of tools we use to analyse the content, it also could be read as if the tools where a screen reader

Detlev - You may not use any tools

Eric - Would it be ok to drop this until later

Shadi - the intent this was user tools

Shadi - lets assume its user tools i.e screen readers

Peter - But,different AT has imperfect support for certain things

Peter - so if you use two different screen readers you might get two different things

Peter - It would cause many issues

Martijn - It would have to work for types of assistive technology

Shadi - at the F2F we started to delve into this issue

Shadi - e.g. you have a large website and you start to buy pieces of content from different suppliers - but this could be difficult

Shadi - difficult in terms of getting support from all ATs for all parts

Peter - the problem is where the granularity is the website or the web page

<Detlev> if things aren't attainable in practice, should they be mandated by WCAG-EM? I think not.

Peter - it would be fine to advise when possible use a single tool and be uniform, but don't require it

Eric - would it be ok to take out the sentence

Peter - take the sentence out or take out both sentences

<Detlev> agree

Eric - I meant take out the last part

<ericvelleman> Proposal to take out: "“For example, if one part of a website is accessible using one set of tools that is different from a set of tools that is needed to access another part of the same website, then the website is effectively not accessible for some users. Accessibility support needs to be uniform throughout a single website.”"

<MartijnHoutepen> +1 and maybe include peter's advise

<ericvelleman> And open issue to discuss this for later version

<Ryladog> +1

Eric - Take out and place as an issue for later discussion

<ericvelleman> ISSUE: discuss uniform accessibility

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-12 - Discuss uniform accessibility; please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/issues/12/edit>.

<Detlev> Alistair: why open up an issue if it has just been discussed - seems entirly unrealistic, so no need to re-discuss

Alistair - are we not just going to have the same discussion when we discuss it again

Katy - we do need to discuss it later

Katy - some of the problems which peter brought up need to be discussed,

Katy - we may need to bring in maturity levels when we use certain technologies

Peter - note in the issue that we might say this is a recommendation not a requirement

Peter - it is not just maturity

Peter - if I use something which used to work, but does not work now why should I be punished

Eric - issue to be discussed later

<Detlev> fine

Eric - take line out

<Ryladog> +1

<Kathy> fine to take it out

Shadi - two lines


<MartijnHoutepen> +1

Eric - Objection to publication - writing error, but this was editorial

Eric - so just the diagram

Shadi - is it ok Kathy to send the diagram to the list

Eric - a number of people were ok with the current diagram

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Feb/0004.html

Eric - the issue was about arrows - do we need arrows everywhere?

Peter - I like the new one much better

Kathy - we had talked about showing interaction between different steps

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Feb/att-0004/W3C-Graphic.jpg

Kathy - things can get complex, but the diagram should show that at any stage you can go back

Kathy - the question is what do we want to show

Peter - the issue with the old one was the size of the text. The waterfall design might be a good design.

Detlev - agree second looks better, but a waterfall idea might be better.

<Tim> step 5 leads directly into step 1 again - what happens if we dont want to do that?

Detlev - this looks a little like a quality circle

Detlev - we are really just looking at a website at a point in time, so a waterfall might be good

Detlev - arrows are not so important

Katy - agree, I like second one, but waterfall might be best

Shadi - What if we took out yellow arrow for now

Shadi - it would be good to have something which looks better than this - before getting a new proposal

Eric - we could use the new diagram until we find another one

<Detlev> it will look damaged if we remove the yellow arrow...

Eric - Peter you propose to complete a waterfall design

Shadi - take out the yellow arrow

Eric - Solution for now - choose new, await further designs

Kathy - are we going back to one Shadi produced, but we could quickly create a highbred between the old and new

Shadi - which one do we go with now - old or new?

<Detlev> use new one for now

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

Eric - replace old with new for now, then await new entrants into the diagram design competitions

<Detlev> fine

Peter - keep the one Shadi made, as it is a waterfall

Peter - I've finished the diagram and will sent it out to the list

Eric - I shall make a survey to see approval for publication - open for a week until next telecon

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

Eric - is this ok, it seems we have already agreed

<Ryladog> +1

<Kathy> +1

<ericvelleman> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<Liz> +1

Shadi - I can work with you on that

Eric - final minutes

Eric - Peter, how far are you

Peter - email sent

<Kathy> I can see it

Peter - it has bigger text, and the arrow heads are not obscured. Steps are also included

<Sarah_Swierenga> i can see it too

Peter - it is in as a PNG

<MartijnHoutepen> me too

<Kathy> i can do that

<Kathy> I would like to see that Peter

<MoeKraft> definitely agree the arrows need cleaning, they are overlapping each other.

Peter - it is not pretty, but the content is what needs to be debated

<Mike_Elledge> Let's put them all there.

<shadi> :)

Eric - what should we do, keep old, take new or take Peter's

<Detlev> I caan prettify it

Shadi - Peter could you work on this this week

Peter - No

Kathy - I could make the arrows a bit prettier

Peter - send me a mail and I will respond

<Mike_Elledge> have to go...bye!

Eric - Shadi, we will leave you graphic

<Liz> bye

Shadi - I shall request that the other working groups gloss over the graphic for now, with the idea that they will get a new graphic in the future

Shadi - This should be an action, which Kathy looks like she has taken on

Eric - Survey launched today, or tomorrow - then we could see if we could get out a working draft

Eric- the working draft would allow a trial

other issues

Eric - a trial would generate a lot of useful feedback

Shadi - we will not be meeting at CSUN

Shadi - there were not enough people

Eric - any further items

Eric - no

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/02/14 10:33:25 $