WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

EV: Welcome
... Weather report NV
... Following next week, next two telco will be cancelled
... We'll be working on rewrite of reporting section, including sample reports.
... Before publishing will have add continents level to document
... Will have discussion next on agenda items.

Item 2:

<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq10/results

<Vivienne> Eric, I sent mine by email as I was too late to respond to the survey

EV: Survey #10. Number of people have responded. Go through survey answers and results need some discussion. Generally accepted resolution. If any problem can come back later.
... Worked on comments in survey in coming week. New editor draft for next week.
... Going through survey comments. First, could everyone find results of survey?

<Vivienne> I can't get into it

<MartijnHoutepen> yes

<MoeKraft> yes

PK: Yes.

EV: Does it need another backslash.

VC: Tells me can't take survey.

EV: Is there something I can do to open it up?

<ericvelleman> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq10/results

S: Anyone else have issue?

VC: Can't get into task force stuff.

EV: Strange.

VC: Can you check my password.

S: Will Follow-up offline.

VC: Can see, but can't respond to questions.

EV: Reopened it. Should be okay.
... Change to Core Functionality. All accepted. Frederick suggested change. Functionality relied upon. A different concept. Why changed to Core Functionality.

PK: Have CF. Functionality isn't relied on for web pages, it what's core. Better as you've suggested it.

EV: Any objection to change?
... Okay. No objections to change as proposed. Will get back to Frederick.
... #2: Number of comments, acceptance of resolution. To add defintion of term conformance. Not to add Satisfy Success Criteria. Couldn't find in document. So why proposed not to include it.

PK: Agree with idea not use Satisfy as SC. WRT WCAG document thought about new section what does document mean for conformance. Challenges wrt site where can't test every page or user interaction w every page.
... Why don't disagree, feel should move ahead. Taking stab at it. Want to discuss now?

EV: Good to discuss, since will start to rewrite. New Seciton on Conformance.

PK: My recollection is agreed to section, talk about conformance has to be lookd at differently when sampling. Conformance = looked at everything. Not what we can do. Our review has to do what have been able to do.
... Have sketched out some points for Conformance Section. What to hear?

EV: This is about definitions. Maybe

<Vivienne> * shadi, still can't get in - changed my password okay, but can't get into the survey

PK: WcAG work had Glossary terms, then had key terms separately. May want to do that with conformance.

EV: Later agenda point.

<MoeKraft> Success Criteria - For each guideline, testable success criteria are provided to allow WCAG 2.0 to be used where requirements and conformance testing are necessary such as in design specification, purchasing, regulation, and contractual agreements. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, three levels of conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest). Additional information on WCAG levels can be found in Underst[CUT]

MK: Don't talk about success creterion, but criteria. Quick search in WCAG there is def for SC. Since trying to use common terms, should we define SC or link back. Here's the definition I found.
... from the guidelines.

MH: Already in documents?

EV: Thought we had but don't.

MK: Simple to add that link.

EV: 43 times in document, maybe relevant.
... Everyone agrees? But question is Satisfies SC. that is not really something we're looking at. Therefore point back to SC. But can add defintion since it's in there 43 times.

PK: Going back to first item. Common Functionality is #2, change to Core Functionality if make change. Capture somewhere.

EV: Will change.

PK: Common webpages becomes core webpages?

EV: Didn't talk about it.

PK: Looking at definition. Mean common to be core.

EV: Add defition of SC (Moe), Turn Common to Core (PK) webpages.

PK: Change 3A to reflect that. Same concept.

EV: let's vote. Adding SC to terms and definitions list. Objections? Add reference to WCAG.

PK: That's my queston. Do as relied upon.

EV: Anyone object>

Shadi: Abbreviated change since it will be major, so everyone can see.

PK: Where do we use Satisfy Success Criteria?

EV: A third item!

EV; Docuemnt doesn't talk about satisfying SC. So make one change; other isn't relevant.

EV: Change SC?

PK: WCAG doesn't define SC. ONly Satisfaction. Not in Glossary terms.

It is in Layers and Guidance.

Who was just speaking?

PK: Put in whole paragraph. Doesn't make sense to me.

EV: Thought there was a concise definition.

?: Do say meeting success criteria.

?: Moe can you mention reference again?

PK: Reappears in 4.

<korn> Methodology Requirement 1.d: Specify the techniques and failures (that have been documented by W3C and others as meeting the Success Criteria) that will be used to evaluate WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. (Optional).

EV: Read out status. Get to root of issue.

MK: 3rd paragraph...not necessary to use specific techniques...emply methods that meet WCAG 2.0 success criteria.

PK: Then in next paragraph also appears.

MK: Good practice to follow WCAG techniques

EV: Step 4...to which there is no matching content are considered to be satisfied...

MK: Also in Step 4c "met WCAG success criteria when..."

EV: Change met to satisfies to be consistent?

PK: Bigger change, refer to meet in various places.

S:

PK: Use meet in many, satisfy in a few.

S: Would using Satisfy satisfy MK

's concern.

MK: Was trying to find Satisfying

EV: Introduction in 4 provide link to satisfying success criteria.
... Problem if we substitute satisfy for meet?

PK: My concern. Use meet many places. Need more careful review and audit, Rather than global search and replace. Need to understand Meet first.
... Not prepared to vote on it.

Shadi: IN some place use Meet in WCAG. Interchangeable. Layers of Guidance, bullet item sufficient and advisory techniques, uses meeting success criteria. Agree that needs more careful look through.

EV: Not an easy search and replace.

MH: Different subject. Can wait if necessary. Point out that common functionality to core agree, but core webpages not the same. Common webpages are typical to webpages. So not in favor of change.

EV: . Let's come back to it.
... Just add definition of success criteria. Meet vs. Satisfy. Do we add defition to this document. Walk through document, find out if used in same way, or can be interchangeable.
... Someone volunteer?

S: Let you and I look at it. Then see if we've missed any occurrances.

EV;Fine.

EV: Adding definition...satisfies into document?

PK: Look into after your and Shadi's review.
... Question those places where we are using WCAG terms, quoting directly. Why not hyperlink? Have items in glossary if we're using it differently.

<shadi> +1

EV: If use meet or satisfies...so many times just add iinto terms and definitions.

PK: More generally. Website is something we define. Relies upon from WCAG 2.0. Would put sentence at top of terms and defs section "Where there is a difference between us and WCAG define below."
... Webpage would be one. Complete processes would be one."

Ev: Shadi and I will look into. Also defning things already defined in WCAG 2.0.
... Proposal to change common web pages to Core. MH already commented.

Shadi: React to Peter's comment. Need to look back, don't feel comfortable to removing terms. They are essential. They are relied upon to differentiate form wCAG.
... With success criteria ppl should know what it is and we link back. Should look back at clarity, satisfy vs. meet, make sure we don't define something new.
... Not as essential to eval process as technologies relied upon is. Want to clarify the impact of removing them.

EV: Want to be able to go through document without having to go to another. Reason to add some things already in WCAG 2.0

PK: Don't feel so strongly about it. Complete processes used 3x, in methodology, link to WCAG. Would be more compact. But don't feel strongly about it. Fine with key words remaining.

EV: Core webpages. Would like to know what others think. Use common for webpages and keep core for functionality. Anyone?

PK: We talked about...will look at survey results. Thinking about and reacting to...starting to become convinced by Martijn's arguments.

K: Agree with Martijn.

Shadi: Recall discussions about more general misunderstandings for someone reading new evaluating some pages, editorial, core gets into more critical aspects, more importanly how we call them

and refer to them in document.

EV: Leave discussion for now.
... A number of commmetns, can read them on discussion list
... Changes to scope of document. Detlev comment. Not on call. Leave for next time. Should be in changes to scope, maybe? Also still discussion. Leave for the moment discuss next week.
... Leaves us time to discuss PK conformance and smaple size.
... What influences sample size. Discussion lacking on that. GEts itno confidence level of results.
... Idea to make list of all parameters that should be considered. Need volunteer to do some writing. Want 12 items to each have short description. So we can all agree what we're talking about.
... Maybe a few persons would like to do.

<ericvelleman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Jul/0028.html

MK: Is that the list...

EV: See in IRC.

EV; 7.1 get to 12 points there.

MK: Want short description? Will do.

VC: Sent another one to the list. Not sure how to get to the 12.
... Have emailed to list. Should be near top.
... Put a few lines describing what I meant.

<ericvelleman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2013Jul/0038.html

Kathy: Great

EV: Section on Conformance.

<Kathy> Mike - the last comments were from Kathy not Moe

PK: The 4 general bullets: 1. Restate WCAG 2.0 for single page if there isn't a violation at AA, AAA . Can't reasonably evaluate every page. The WCAG defines subset, to ascertain how it is likely to confrorm.
... Then provide some confidence level as it applies to entire website.

EV: First reaction. Sent a short proposal to list?

PK: Want to develop it further.

EV: First reaction?
... Just blown away...
... Put it on the mail as you presented it. Start discussion there.
... Will be working on section, maybe keep it empty for the moment.
... Last agenda point.

PK: Didn't get to survey. Can we get to it later? Keep 2-16 open?

EV: Have to put some kind of deadline on it. Bec want to work on changes proposed there. When can we get to it?
... Keep open until Sunday evening. Also for others. :^)
... I reach 6 already, look at again. If you find soemthing add it there. Will start working on it anyway. Will keep open to Sunday.
... Anyone else?
... Have a nice day tomorrow and very pleasant weekend. Please look at survey if you haven't.

<Vivienne> Eric, do you still want me to do the survey even though I've emailed my responses?

<ericvelleman> Vivienne, yes, please do