WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

18 Apr 2013

See also: IRC log


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


state of comments

EV: Welcome

<ericvelleman> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-em-comments/>

<ericvelleman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-em-comments/

EV: valuable comments, 7 sofar
... We will start making a DoC this weekend
... some people used WCAG-EM and compared it with their own methods

VC: sent WCAG EM to a lot of people, very positive reviews

EV: we have to ask people to really try out WCAG-EM

starting of test run

EV: there are a number of websites available for testing
... library page of large university

VC: they agree to being used as test case, one question: memorandum of understanding on the use of test-data

EV: Moe has another website we can use

MK: a subset of a very big corporate website

peter, would you mind taking over?

<Detlev> could yOu repeat. mOE

Plan is to test website via the methodology in stages (not a run of the entire methodology)

<Detlev> Moe, could you please repeat the URL?

EV: Idea is to do "unit testing" of methodology at this stage
... Also a question from site candidate #1 about a MOU

Site #2 is a portion of IBM's website

Site #1 is a library website

Site #3 is a game website

<ericvelleman> Are you muted?

<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/testrun/results

<Detlev> sorry, my connection was lost...

EV: Thoughts on the questionaire? Using it to gather test results?

PK: Is survey certainly not visible to public?

<MartijnHoutepen> i get a login screen

PK: Believe you need to have a W3C login to reach this page

<MartijnHoutepen> tried it in a different browser

Liz: Confused by survey. What is being sought in it?

EV: We aren't really evaluating a website; we are evaluating EvalTF. Specifically Steps 1-3

Liz: Never done this before, so feels she will be a good candidate. And is a little confused.

PK: It would be helpful to start the questionnaire with an explanation. Also to add a question about HOW the representative sample was generated (since we don't give guidance on that topic)

<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/testrun/

DF: will changes made to the current questionnaire?

PK: Since survey requires password to view it, so suggests include URL to websites in it.

EV: Plans to do one survey for each site reviewed.

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1 on the three questionnaires, one for each site

DF: Would prefer to have this all in one survey

EV: Will think about options... But let us first focus on the survey we have, which has info about game site
... Any other thoughts on the way we are doing this, the questions we have?

<Mike_Elledge> +1 for one questionnaire per survey

EV: In next week, will send out a reminder to the group about the survey - ask everyone to fill this in (at least the volunteers).
... Then discuss differences in WBS system (or mailing list without any URL reference to the site)

<MartijnHoutepen> yes

ME: Which URLs will we be testing? Sent to list?

EV: No, will not go to list. Will be in WBS questionnaires.
... Will work on an MOU for the other two websites, so we can work on those too.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/04/26 13:34:07 $