WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force Teleconference

19 Jun 2014

See also: IRC log


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


updated WCAG-EM Editor Draft

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617v2

SA: Last week we didn't get through all of the changes. There are editorial comments to add in that are not substantial. Substantial comments have all been addressed.
... Merging of 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c - there were some concerns so that's why there are 2 drafts for this week to look at the options.
... The merging of step 4 has been completed in the draft

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617#toc

SA: Step 1d - Evaluation methods was agreed to move to step 4.
... Define accessibility support baseline section has changed substantially.
... Step 2 is largely unchanged except for editorials.
... The order has been changed in step 3 to match step 2.
... Step 4 now has 3 steps and has the most change.
... Step 5 has only been changed in the area of the aggregated score section.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617#step4

Step 4 discussion

SA: First sub-step 4.a is 'Check all initial web pages'.
... The previous sub-sections in step 4 were moved under 4.a.
... Step 4.b has been largely unchanged (used to be 4.d)
... Step 4.c (used to be 4.e) is also largely unchanged.
... Step 4.a is where review should be focused.

<alistair> Note on alternate versions intended to be conforming alternate versions. Each alternate version of a web page included in the sample which is intended to be used as conforming alternate version of a web need to be included in the sample.

Alistair: Supports changes to 4.a. The above alternative note is suggested regarding alternate versions.

Vivienne: +1 on the updates.

SA: None of the content was removed from previous versions, just reorganized into this section.

Vivienne: Should we add a comment or notes earlier in the document about additional guidance available in later sections?

Kathy: Suggest adding a note that 4.a and 4.b can be done together - don't have to be done sequentially.

SA: This is true of other steps too, like 2 & 3. Maybe we can make a note in earlier sections that this is the case.

Richard: +1 on the updates. Would prefer to leave it as it is right now.

Detlev: Non-interference of Step 4.a really belongs with the conformance information earlier in the document.

SA: Perhaps in numbered list under step 4 we can put a note or add something saying which points are explained further below.

Detlev: The heading used for 'Note on...' doesn't stand out since it appears after another note. Suggest removing words 'Note on'.

<shadi> [[During this step the evaluator audits (detailed evaluation of) all of the web pages and web page states]]

Detlev: Need to fix the grammar in the sentence posted by Shadi above.

Vivienne: Conforming alternate versions - The conforming alternate version technique is being discussed by the WCAG working group.

Detlev: It isn't the same context as this.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617#alternate-versions

<shadi> [[The WCAG 2.0 definition for conforming alternate version defines specific requirements for alternate versions to qualify as conforming]]

Detlev: The discussion has been about the technique of providing an alternative version in a specific context. If someone is given an alternative version, it needs to be checked for accessibility.

Alistair: We don't say anything about that specifically.

Detlev: An alternative version needs to be proven it is conforming. We need to include the alternative version in the sample to prove it is conforming.

<Detlev> Behavior using different settings, preferences, devices, and interaction parameters.

Detlev: Need to cover somewhere as part of describing/defining determining the screen size, etc. that will be tested.

SA: Shadi will try to take a pass at editing the inclusion of conforming alternative.

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Vivienne> +1

<EricVelleman> +1

<Tim> +1

<Detlev> fine

<richard> +1

<shadi> [[This includes all components of the web page or web page state without activating any functions, entering any data, or otherwise initiating a process]]

SA: Clarifying this that you are testing the initial state of the page.

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617#responsive

<Vivienne> I would really like something in there on this Alistair

<Vivienne> okay, I'm fine with that

SA: The baseline does take into account that different resolutions are included in the web page states.

Kathy: If there is responsive design, you've got to check the content in those different resolution states.

<shadi> [[Examples of web page states are the individual pages of a multi-part online form that are dynamically generated depending on users input. These individual states may not have unique URIs and may need to be identified by describing the settings, input, and actions required to generate them.]]

SA: Should mention something about responsive design and possibly add a link to the responsive design section.

Kathy: Pixel density, resolution states, and orientation all should figure into what you need to test.

<Vivienne> +1

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Detlev> yes!

SA: Got agreement that this change is left up to the editor.

<Tim> +1

<Kathy> +1

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617v2

Merging some of the steps in 3 to be condensed to Steps 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c.

Alistair: +1 for condensing. Didn't care for 'generated' in the title.

Vivienne: Prefers the original, non-merged version as it seems clearer.

<richard> I like the new version, it is easier to read and follow

Eric: Likes the expanded version.
... It draws more attention to the steps you really have to take.

<Detlev> prefer condensed

Alistair: We can put the document out with the longer version and we can always change later.

<Tim> no strong feelings one way or other

<Sarah_Swierenga> I know. still trying to decide

<Mike_Elledge> I don't remember the long version. :^)

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617v2

<Kathy> v2 is better

<Detlev> Condensed by all means

<Sarah_Swierenga> the longer version looks scarier

Kathy: The condensed version is clearer, less daunting, and explains the process in an easier way to follow.

Detlev: Agree it looks easier to do, so prefers the shorter version.

<Mike_Elledge> Prefer shorter version too

<alistair> go with the short one then

SA: Major restructuring will likely cause the WCAG working group to want to re-review those sections.

SA: The logic didn't seem to work in the previous (longer) version of step 3 where there was some back-and-forth between the steps. Condensed, the note after the list becomes easier to notice.

Vivienne: Though the longer version is preferred, would support going with the condensed version.

Detlev: Don't really need a perfect match between steps 2 and 3. The shorter 3 is better because it doesn't repeat some of the information from step 2.

Eric: Likes the short version. It makes it clear between the structured and random samples.

SA: Editors will work on an improved title.

<Vivienne> +1

<Kathy> +1

<alistair> +1

<richard> +1

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Tim> +1

<Detlev> +1

Next steps

<shadi> www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20140617v2

<Vivienne> there's a lot of background noise

SA: Need agreement that the V2 of the draft is brought to the WCAG working group for review next week. Sent out Monday or Tuesday to get approval for publication as the final publication Note.

<Vivienne> +1

<Sarah_Swierenga> +1

<Detlev> 1+

<alistair> +1

<EricVelleman> +1

<Kathy> +1

<richard> Yes please seek approval

<Mike_Elledge> +1

<Tim> +1

<Vivienne> can we have a virtual glass of champagne then?

SA: May not need a meeting next week, unless further comments received. WCAG working group will likely need a week to review. Next week will be a tentative meeting, but the first week of July we'll meet to handle comments.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014/06/24 09:27:41 $