See also: IRC log
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20131129
SAZ: we published editor draft in november, now
trying to wrap up comments
... hopefully working towards our last working draft
... other groups are reviewing our draft s.a. WCAG, ERT
... some comments are still open
<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2014Jan/0004.html
SAZ: comment 18,27,33: we suggested "essential functionality" instead of "core"
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment18
SAZ: does anybody have another suggestion for this wording?
<Sarah_Swierenga> 'essential' works for me
DF: whatever we pick, we'll always have comments
SAZ: we'll keep essential for now
<Vivienne> I'm happy with essential for now
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment53
SAZ: comment 53 suggested we give extra guidance on responsive webdesign
KW: if content is hidden in the mobile version of the website, this could be considered as another page
SAZ: in the section "scope of applicability" the extent of the website is described, testing of mobile websites is part of another section
KW: we need guidance on what to do with mobile versions of the same site
<shadi> Suggested Text [[Note: Websites using responsive design techniques (i.e. adapting the presentation according to user hardware, software, and preferences) as opposed to redirecting the user to a different location are not considered to be independent website versions unless the site at the different breakpoints utilizes different code. In that case, the website at the different breakpoints could be considered as individual websites each for evaluation.]]
DF: Agree, different breakpoints can change the website in very different ways, we need to acknowledge this
AG: this fits under "use cases"
SAZ: in several steps, f.e. step 4, but i don't know if it constitutes different websites
AG: seeing this as different website could be problematic for users
DF: I wouldn't treat this as a different website, but we can include it as a certain "state" of a page
KW: agree with DF, we can incorporate it in step 3 & 4
SAZ: we can add it to scope of applicability, and mention it at the page states, and in step 4
KW: agree
under particulor types of website we add another item: website using responsive design
Decision: under "particular types of websites" we add another item: website using responsive design
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment43
<Detlev> Shadi, has the third scoring option already been deleted?
<Detlev> fine
SAZ: the "per instance score" is dropped as agreed
DF: people will be able to make scores for themselves anyway, so it doesnt matter that much. Agree with Gregg V that it's debateable. Not happy to drop it, but can see the point
SAZ: will be discussed in WCAG call tuesday
VC: People will come up with there own scoring, i think it's necessary to give some guidance on scoring, but we needn't prescribe a way how it should be done
LF: We talked about having an addendum to this document, with a paper on different kinds of scoring methodologies. "although we don't dictate how to score, see .... for further information"
LF: NIST has come up with a weighted scoring system, this could be referenced
SAZ: we now offer the most simplest form of scoring; do we need to remove this?
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/
SAZ: WAI-engage is the place for this kind of suggestions
ME: problematic to put any scoring system in the
body of the document, the process of scoring websites is too complex
... an alternative: "although WCAG-em doesn't recommend any scoring method,
but see reference X for guidance..."
thanks!
ME: we can establish criteria to use when choosing scoring methods
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-metrics-report/
AG: we can just remove everything, because it is too complex
SAZ: we can reference a wiki, where all scoring methods can be collected
AG: in different studies, different scoring methods are use in the context of that study, so not all methods can be extrapolated
DF: we now have the minimum of scoring methods, but i'd like to keep it in, as optional
SAZ: score methodology draws focus away from conformance
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment50
VF: First letter capilisation
<Detlev> fine to me
<Sarah_Swierenga> +1
<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20131129#comment49
<shadi> [[Following this methodology will help evaluators to apply good practice, avoid commonly made mistakes, and achieve more comparable results]]
VF: the "to" has to come out
<Sarah_Swierenga> out with the 'to' :-)
<agarrison> don't need the final comma either...
SAZ: please review the comments, especially your
own
... if all goes well, we can get agreement with WCAG WG