W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

21 Feb 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Bruce_Bailey, Cherie_Eckholm, David_MacDonald, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Joshue;, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kerstin_Probiesch, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Robin_Tuttle, Shadi
Regrets
Gian_Wild, James_Nurthen, Alex_Li
Chair
Gregg_Vanderheiden
Scribe
Joshue, Joshue108

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 21 February 2013

<Joshue108> scribenick: Joshue

<MichaelC> scribeNick: Joshue108

<scribe> scribenick: Joshue108

GV: Todays agenda is starting with the EVAL methodology. We hope to sign off on it etc.

<Loretta> I'm going to try to monitor IRC while attending my orientation, but won't be on the phone.

GV: So if we have show stoppers we can give feedback etc. For probs please make suggestions. If not poss, an editors note etc is a good idea. Concerned about deadline etc.

:-)

<greggvanderheiden> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20130221eval/results

Website Accessibility Conformance Eval Methodology

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130219#teams

<greggvanderheiden> The methodology defined by this document can be carried out by an individual evaluator with the skills described in section Required Expertise. However, using the combined expertise of review teams provides better coverage for the required skills and helps identify accessibility barriers more effectively. While not required, it is strongly recommended to employ review teams for conformance evaluation of websites. Specific guidance is

<greggvanderheiden> provided in Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility.

RESOLUTION: Remove 'strongly' from review teams section

<shadi> "must" -> "has to"

<kerstin> probably a disclaimer like in the techniques "Some techniques use the word "must". Because the techniques document is not a normative document, this word is not used in the sense of RFC 2119. The colloquial use of the word "must" describes proper application of the specific technique under consideration. It does not imply requirements beyond the scope of the technique. "

<kerstin> it's here : http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/intro.html

<Loretta> Agree with Shadi.

<kerstin> I'm also fine with deleting "must" :-)

<greggvanderheiden> probably a disclaimer like in the techniques "Some techniques use the word "must". Because the techniques document is not a normative document, this word is not used in the sense of RFC 2119. The colloquial use of the word "must" describes proper application of the specific technique under consideration. It does not imply requirements beyond the scope of the technique. "

<greggvanderheiden> http://davidmacd.com/test/random.html

<kerstin> I'm not in the queue, so shadi is next

<Loretta> Sorry need to drop off the phone now.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130219#step5a

<greggvanderheiden> Only captures the successes and failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements globally for the entire website. For each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion applicable as per Step 1.c. Define the Conformance Target, the report identifies if it is met or not met in the selected sample of web pages. Where failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are identified, at least one example web page from the sample in which such a failure ha[CUT]

<greggvanderheiden> identified must be indicated in the report.

<greggvanderheiden> Detailed Report

<greggvanderheiden> Captures the successes and failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements for each web page. For each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion applicable as per Step 1.c. Define the Conformance Target, the report identifies if it is met or not met in each web page in the selected sample of web pages. Where failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria on a web page are identified, each identified occurrence of such a failure must be indicated in

<greggvanderheiden> the report.

<greggvanderheiden> Basic Report

<greggvanderheiden> Only captures the successes and failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements globally for the entire website. For each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion applicable as per Step 1.c. Define the Conformance Target, the report identifies if it is met or not met in the selected sample of web pages. Where failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are identified, at least one example web page from the sample in which such a failure ha[CUT]

<greggvanderheiden> identified must be indicated in the report.

<greggvanderheiden> Detailed Report

<greggvanderheiden> Captures the successes and failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements for each web page. For each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion applicable as per Step 1.c. Define the Conformance Target, the report identifies if it is met or not met in each web page in the selected sample of web pages. Where failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria on a web page are identified, each identified occurrence of such a failure must be indicated in

<greggvanderheiden> the report.

<greggvanderheiden> In-Depth Analysis Report

<greggvanderheiden> Captures the successes and failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements for each Success Criterion. For each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion applicable as per Step 1.c. Define the Conformance Target, the report identifies if it is met or not met in the selected sample of web pages. Where failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are identified, examples of the identified occurrence of such a failure must be indicated in the r[CUT]

<greggvanderheiden> The In-Depth Analysis Report includes a summary of the issues identified on the website, examples of frequently occurring issues and an assessment of their impact on the users of the website in completing tasks, and if possible suggestions for improving the overall accessibility of the website and suggesting guidance for the future.

<greggvanderheiden> ack

Sorry guys, I'm gonna have to go in ~ 5, can someone else please scribe?

RESOUTION: Drop conformance requirements from the report format and add 'for each web page after ' success criterion in depth. Add editors note asking input on report formats.

<AWK> I have to drop off in ~1 minute also.

<David> Resolution: CHANGE

<David> Such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation according to this methodology.

<David> TO

<David> Such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation if this methodology is used. (or- ....if using this methodology)

<David> RESOLUTION:CHANGE

<David> Such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation according to this methodology.TO Such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation if this methodology is used. (or- ....if using this methodology)

<greggvanderheiden> change 1d and 4c to read "….techniques and failures that have been documented by W3C and others as meeting the success criteria…."

<David> RESOLUTION: Change such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation according to this methodology to "Such web pages may not be excluded from the scope of evaluation if this methodology is used. (or- ....if using this methodology)"

<David> RESOLUTION: change 1d and 4c to read "… .techniques and failures that have been documented by W3C and others as meeting the success criteria…."

<David> RESOLUTION: Shadi to update editorials from Joshue. 'My first thought was, "What situations?", then I realised you are referring to the closed network - that may be clearer if it was something like: "W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly documented Techniques for WCAG 2.0. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. In fact, in some situations, such as in a closed network,...

<David> ...it may be necessary to use techniques that are specifically developed to the particular needs of the users of that network."

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130219#step4

<David> practicable?

<shadi> [[While ideally every web page of a website is evaluated, usually this is not possible on most websites. In cases where all web pages can be evaluated, this sampling procedure can be skipped and the selected sample is considered to be the entire website in the remaining steps.]]

<David> RESOLUTION: add one more question to the scoring editors note... or would scoring be a good idea at all?

<David> RESOLUTION: Unanimous consent to Publish the EVAL DOC as a draft with the resolutions of this meeting

<greggvanderheiden> http://tinyurl.com/balvfg3

<greggvanderheiden> '

WCAG to ICT

Comment LC-2661

Comment LC-2653

<David> RESOLUTION: Resolve LC-2653 as revised

LC-2665

<David> RESOLUTION: Resolve LC-2665 as written

LC-2655

<David> s/ LC-265 as written/ LC-2665 as written/

<David> RESOLUTION: AcceLC-2653 as revised

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2665 as revised

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2653 as written

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2665, 2655, 2690, 2666, 2656, 2667, 2657, 2692, 2687, 2702, 2664, 2675, 2654, 2689, 2676, 2691, 2677, 2678, 2680, 2694, 2693, 2682,

LC- 2668

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2668 as written

LC- 2701

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2701 as written

LC-2658

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2658 as written

LC-2660

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2660 as revised

LC-2698

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2698 as written

LC-2700

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2700 as amended

LC-2679

LC-2681

LC-2695

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2695 as amended

LC-2688

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2688 as amended

LC-2661

<kerstin> No

<David> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2669, 2679, 2681 as amended

<David> RRSAgentI have made the request,

<David> do you have it Michael

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-02-21 23:54:46 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/1c and 4c/1d and 4c/
Succeeded: s/1c and 4c/1d and 4c/
Succeeded: s/not/note/
Succeeded: s/oublishethe/Publish the/
Succeeded: s/ LC-265 as written/ LC-2665 as written/
FAILED: s/ LC-265 as written/ LC-2665 as written/
Succeeded: s/2770/2700/
Found ScribeNick: Joshue
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Joshue> ...
Found ScribeNick: Joshue108
Found ScribeNick: Joshue108
Inferring Scribes: Joshue, Joshue108
Scribes: Joshue, Joshue108
ScribeNicks: Joshue, Joshue108
Default Present: Shadi, Joshue;, Michael_Cooper, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Robin_Tuttle, +1.617.584.aaaa, Andrew_Kirkpatrick
Present: Andrew_Kirkpatrick Bruce_Bailey Cherie_Eckholm David_MacDonald Gregg_Vanderheiden Joshue; Katie_Haritos-Shea Kerstin_Probiesch Loretta_Guarino_Reid Michael_Cooper Robin_Tuttle Shadi
Regrets: Gian_Wild James_Nurthen Alex_Li
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013JanMar/0097.html
Found Date: 21 Feb 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/02/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]