WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

05 Dec 2013


See also: IRC log


Kathy, Shadi, Liz, Sarah, Mike, Richard, Mary Jo, Detlev, Eric, Alistair, Martijn, Moe
Tim, Gavin, Vivienne,


editor draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129

Disposition of Comments: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20130226

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/

shadi: full editor draft - survey for public comments
... thanks to Vivian, Moe, and Kathy for their valuable copy edit comments.
... most new work in the editor draft is in the steps themselves, mostly Step 4 audit the selected sample

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#step4

shadi: Step 3 - factors that influence sample size has been cleaned up and reorganized; content pretty much unchanged
... WCAG working group comments - We need the approvals from the WCAG WG and ERT WG
... needs comments from our group for fixes before publication - suggestions to reduce confusion, misrepresentation

<shadi> [[

<shadi> priority: [mild/medium/strong suggestion]

<shadi> location: (such as: "under Introduction heading, third paragraph")

<shadi> current wording:

<shadi> suggested revision:

<shadi> rationale:

<shadi> ]]

shadi: also add comments for fixing after publication, but make sure to clearly indicate those comments; use the 'priority' format

<ericvelleman> survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/

shadi: timeline - desire to publish before end of year - reading by the fireplace, lol
... timeline - feedback by Dec 13th; resolve issues by Dec 17 for WCAG, and Dec 18 for ERT, and then publish Dec 20 hopefully

eric: agenda items addressed in Shadi's comments

shadi and eric: initial reactions?

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/results

<Detlev> I would still like to have a little discussion of Step 5.d: Provide a Performance Score (Optional)...

mike: mainly editorial comments, not substantial issues

kathy: wondering where the info is on incorporating assistive technology into the testing
... using AT and the approach for organizations

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#step1c

<shadi> Step 1.c: Define an Accessibility Support Baseline

kathy: lots of discussion within Federal, state, and businesses about integrating AT into the testing protocol

shadi: is this topic appropriate for this document? include your thoughts in the survey

Allistar: We need to indicate how to create a baseline, e.g., accessibility support

Alistair: maybe this needs to be discussed with the WCAG 2 team
... there will be a lot of questions about this, but can hold until after the public comments

<shadi> +1 to Eric's suggestion

Eric could add a comment in the public editor draft

shadi: if someone declares that JavaScript is needed on the site, is that an accessibility issue? How much do these issues relate to our mission?

kathy: offers to send her webinar link to the list

<Kathy> http://www.howto.gov/training/classes/use-assistive-technology-to-comply-with-section-508

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129#step5d

detlev: Section 5d - performance score - wants to discuss this section - per instance score may be difficult to implement, and may not reflect the priority of that failure

<Detlev> http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/accessibility-barrier-scores-2/

<Detlev> http://www.bitvtest.eu/bitv_test/intro/overview.html

detlev: different ways of creating scores, but as currently written it appears to be the only recommended approach

<Detlev> Per site and per page (pass/fail) seem fine to me!

shadi: didn't we try to put in a combined score, rather than multiple ones?

<Richard> Per site is the only one that works for me

Mike: remembers discussing this, but the group wasn't sure which one to use; no closure from the group
... could we post the options in the resources section?

Eric: remembers wanting to keep this section more general, but group didn't come to a conclusion
... could do performance scores for complete website, web page, web page state, or per instance - depends on the goal of the evaluation

detlev: criticality of the failure is very important
... wants a score that goes beyond pass/fail, but speaks to criticality
... wants to identify other approaches - later would be ok (maybe a note in the public editor draft)
... we don't want to 'outlaw' other approaches

richard: Priority A, AA, AAA are already a rough priority standard, but trying to specify critical issues until you get into the testing process

detlev: methodology shouldn't define criticality, but the test score should reflect a way of giving a priority

<Detlev> +1 to Richard

richard: recommends not going into too much detail into this section

Mike: suggests putting a placeholder indicating that we want comments on

eric: everything is a draft, but we can add an editor note
... likes the idea of keeping this section more flexible as suggested today.

<Detlev> fine

shadi: per instance scores become more subjective and involve weighting and other considerations; recommends dropping the per instance score and keeping the per website and per page pass/fail

<Detlev> lets have a quick survey in this telco of this suggestion, Shadi!

<Detlev> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Liz> 0

<Kathy> +1

<agarrison> +1

<MartijnHoutepen> +1

<ericvelleman> +1

<MoeKraft> +1


<MaryJo> +1

eric: we
... we'll make this change in the doc before publishing the public editor draft

<shadi> http://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/2014/sessions/

shadi: meeting at the csun conference? this might coincide with the next public draft (the final public draft)

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/12/10 10:28:30 $