WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

12 Jun 2014


See also: IRC log


Vivienne, Martijn, Shadi, Detlev, Mike, Alistair, Kathy
Sarah, MaryJo


Update on final Editor Draft

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2014Jun/0010.html

Finalising draft: Please go down disposition of comments and ensure everything is cloded one by one

Shadi: we should finalise the draft for the WG to revie
... addressing questions regarding reorganisation of the text

Potential reorganization of sections in the Editor Draft

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2014Jun/0011.html

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step1d

Shadi: Addressing several suggestions - first reg. step 1e

<shadi> Step 1.d (define evaluation procedures) seems more related to the

<shadi> use of techniques (or other methods) during evaluation (i.e. Step 4)

<shadi> than to Step 1

Shadi: section 1d was flagged in test run: people were not sure what exactly to d
... suggest keeping the suggestions from step 1d and move to step 4

<Kathy> +1

Shadi: info on techniques role for testing seems a better fit in step 4


<martijnhoutepen> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Vivienne> +1

Resolution: move section 1d to step 4

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step3d

Shadi: Next on is step 3d (complete processes)
... (describes content of section 3d)

Shadi: suggestion to move parts of 3d (complete proccesses) move selection of pages that are part of the process to step 4 (explained by Martjin)

Kathy: We still need to identify complete processes in step 3

Vivienne: How does moving the choosing of the sample (incl. complete processes) to step 4 ensure that we have actuall ycovered the whole process?

Shadi: (explaining) 1. Mark start of process in step 3 / 2. specify the exact sample in step 4

Mike: Important to retain the idea to include complete processes in sample - step 3 still needed

Detlev: processes with decision points are often too complex to be covered exhaustively anyway - step 4 is picking those pages and states on pages that are present and need to be evaluated, as type

Shadi: Step 3 still valid for making the complete processes included

<Vivienne> I'm fine with that as you identified just now Shadi. As long as the step stays in 3 that we identify any complete processes

<martijnhoutepen> +1

Shadi: OK to move evaluation of complete processes to step 4 - first two steps in algorithm remain in step 3 - items 3 and 4 in algorithm (looking at branches) go to step 4


<Kathy> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

Resolution: Move items 3 and 4 in algorithm in step 3d to step 4

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step4a

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step4c

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140610#step1d

Shadi: Fourh point in Email was mergin 4a and 4c (referring to mailing list discussion a while back)

<martijnhoutepen> +1

Mike: Makes sense to merge 4a and 4c - important not to refer to alternative version pages as compliant before they have been checked (and passed WCAG)

Detlev: repeating some content of the discussion of checking of pages with alternative versions

Shadi: Tow issues: what we want in the nethodology regarding the process of checking alternative versions, second merge the text (then it has to be updated anyway)

Vivienne: Not sure why these to sections 4a nad 4c should be merged

Vivenne: important to have them as separate steps - important to identify it as second steps where we discover references to alternative versions

Shadi: Point is that the alternative is usually identified during sampling/testing so it belongs together - now the two connected steps are interrupted by step 4b complete processes
... none of the information should be removed - the issue is moving it to those sections in the methodology where it is needed

Alistair: OK with merging 4a and 4c
... cursory check on default pages will be needed to check whether alternative versions are properly linked to default pages
... if the link is fine, evaluation should move to alternative version, homing in on default version would be unfair since the alternative stands in for it
... Methodology needs to rest on definition of "conforming alternative version"

Shadi: Alistair's case refers to a situation where the alternative version intends to be a full replacement of the default page - bu tthere are many other cases where only some content is renderd on alternative version pages

<Vivienne> that's my understanding also, Shadi

Alistair: once a page is seen as conforming alternative version needs to be thrown out of the sample

Shadi: Understanding is that page and conforming version need to be seen as one entity

Alistair: Must not include issues for which conforming alternatives exist

Shadi: commissioner may want to know what is needed to avoid alternative version altogether

<Vivienne> +1

<martijnhoutepen> +1

<alistair> Merge ok by me

I have an alternative suggestion

<Mike_Elledge> +1

Suggestion to move section 4c to place 4b so it is adjacent to 4a - keeping checing SCs and checking alternative versions close together

Shadi: having them as separate checkpoints is a bit unnatural

I agree (/pesonally)

<Vivienne> +1

Resolution: Merge step 4a and 4c, make sure that content is preserved

Martjin: moving 4b back could mean that you lose a check whether a complete process as an alternative accessible version

Marttjin: swapping may not work well therefore

Martjin: 4d is needed on every page as well

Shadi: difficult to design it so that it flows well

Alistair: Wonders whether 4 c and 4d should be merged to ensure that the five conformance requirements are check in sync
... $c and $d are linked - this should be checked first to then split off into checking accessible alternatives, for those without alternaitves you would check all SCs

<martijnhoutepen> step 4a+4c+4d == ¨Check each page for the conformance requirements¨

Shadi: There were no requirements to remove info - changed order has a different flavour
... will ty to take a stab at reordering step 4 sections

Shadi; Last issue is to merge 3a 3b and 3c because they are small and some evaluators were confused

Shadi; Last issue is to merge 3a 3b and 3c because they are small and some evaluators were confused

Shadi: Wants to merge without losing any info - would be more straighrfoerward guidance


Martlin: Likes hoe 3 a - b- c- maps onto 2 a - b -c

Martjin: Seemd natural in the test run

Shadi: Some comlpained about frequent cross-referencing between sections, so this is what should be addressed

<Vivienne> sure

Next steps

Shadi: will finish final editor draft together with Eric
... Final draft brought to WG review
... Either TF wants to see editor draft first or Shadi and Eric are given carte blanche to finsalise it and move it to WG review

<alistair> Go straight to review by other groups

Mike: Would like to take a final look at the draft

Shadi: fair dos - we discussed a lot of changes today, also not all comments addressed

<Vivienne> I'd like another look

Alistair: straight to review

<martijnhoutepen> agree with alistair

Detlev: don't mind if you finalise and it goes straight to review

Either way!

<Vivienne> yes please just because there are lots of changes

Alistair: no worth to have a version to look at without option to change it over again

Shadi: Sure changes could still be made

Alistair: why not going via the list so people can review it and object if they find issues

Detlev: What we discussed today aren't substantial changes

Shadi: if preview is wanted that should respected

Vivienne: will go with wht group as a whole decides - may still be useful to look at the changes, also on the list

Shadi: to be clear: sending it to the WG means there wil be a survey where anybody can provide feedback

Vivienne: easy with that

Shadi: another few weeks needed to address coments from WG review proccess

Mike: will go with group as a whole, yields to majority

Shadi: suggests to wrap up comments (earliest on Monday for ppl to look at) - WCAG meting already on Tuesday so it's tight
... will send update to list ppl can then agree / object to sending to to WG review

<Mike_Elledge> Thanks all! Especially Shadi and Eric!!

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014/06/13 02:55:06 $