WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

06 Mar 2014

See also: IRC log


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



EV: some last minute remarks, added an 'all pages' field, and did some editorial changes

KW: there's an accessibility problem in the survey for people using screen magnifying software

EV: we'll look in to that
... we have to choose a website

DF: will we do just one website? or more?
... suggested a website as well


DF: more website give us a better view of the methodology

Liz: agree with DF

EV: Its a lot of work, don't know if we can ask that of people

KW: good to test it on different websites, different types of websites
... this will be one of the critiques we will get : we tested it on too similar sites
... share concern with number of people who will do a total evaluation

MH: scared that not to many people do the same site

EV: if we open it up, people can include the evaluating they are doing at the moment

DF: most important to ask the community for websites, to get a broader view

KW: agree with DF, but we need a disclaimer that the data will become public
... make a note that partial info is also welcome

EV: keeping it at level A will decrease the effort people have to give, increase chance to get feedback
... group decided to do AA

DF: make an open call asking people to nominate websites

DF: we can tell people that we don't need people to expect to do total evaluation, but make an emphasis on the feedback on the methodology

EV: i expect lots of people to volunteer their website for evaluation

DF: we don't need a lot, but more variation then we have now, and we need more testers
... we can start with the sites we have, and need to make a open call for more sites

ME: agree with MH, we should ask people to do one site, use that feedback on maybe a next site
... most valuable for us is if we use one or two sites

<Detlev> I meant more importantly: mor testers =more problems people may encounter using WCAG EM

DF: we need more testers

EV: we need to discuss this in a next telco, but i'd like to start the survey
... right now

DF: agree, starting now is ok to hurry up proces, but like to include more testers

EV: proposal : Start with the 3 websites we have?

DF: consensus was starting with one, adding more later

MH: let's start with one, the sooner we get results the better

<Detlev> fine

EV: or we could do a two-way rocket: first one of our 'own', after that make it more open.

<Detlev> Can we also agree that we have a second public call for evaluation soon?


<Liz> fine

EV: talk about opening up the survey to include more website next week, start with one asap


<Detlev> +1

<Liz> 4H

4h +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Detlev> I don't mind really

ev: start with 4h , others we'll discuss next week
... I'll make a scope suggestiong, please comment on that before monday morning


<Liz> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

EV: is this ok?

DF: what feedback are you expecting?

EV: i'll figure out a suggestion with sarah and mail it to the list

DF: can you ask for consensus to add an open call ?

<Kathy> +1

<EricVelleman> +1

<Detlev> +1!!!


<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Liz> +1

EV: we'll discuss this next week, and i'll make a changed survey so we can discuss this
... survey will be launched monday evening, i'll sort things out with shadi w3c
... how long should we keep it open?
... proposal to keep it open to 10th april

DF: is there a deadline for final publication?

EV: last december.. we didn't make that
... like to finish it
... if necessary we can change it later
... if we do an open call, we'll take longer to finish
... to process everybody's results


EV: we have a preliminary agenda
... no quorum there, so everything will be discussed in the group

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014/03/10 14:50:36 $