W3C logo Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) logo > EOWG Home

EOWG Minutes, August 3, 2001


Review of "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility"

Reference: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/rev.html

JB: Work on change log, revising it to include comments on list.

JB: Stripped off resource suite nav bar to avoid implication that it covers whole suite.

Preliminary Review and Conformance

KA: Procedures for ongoing monitoring should ensure the site could remain conformance>

JB: Ongoing development by itself won't work, as

KA: SSB Technologies has product runs on server and gives constant evaluation of conformance.

KA: Versions 4.0 of InSite and InFocus. Will demo for them next week.

CL: Will be getting copies soon to examine and critique.

KA: Connecticut interest is with WCAG and has no plans for 508.

KA: AAC Software only does 508.

KA: Tools will help ensure (but not guarantee) conformance

JB: Replace "accessibility checker" with "evaluation tools."

HB: Summarize results: recommend follow-up steps

JB: including full conformance evaluation and ways to address identified problems.

JB: Tab to form controls by itself isn't enough. Added this.

JB: Page evaluations 3.2 bullet 2.

DS: Gave feedback from a tester on how she would use this. Prioritize by "mission critical" pages, the least number of pages that are involved in a transaction.

JMA: Would be hard to translate.

HB: "pages critical to your business."

CL: Focus on those pages that get most requested.

JB: 3-5. Steps on page selection and expanded page selection should suggest follow-up on similar pages. Added "summarize and follow-up."

DS: Connection between 3- feedback

JB: summarize, recommend method, and indicate follow-up steps.

SD: Do this for each page, location, and type.

KA: 3-5 motivator and cheerleader add: indicate what were done well and best practices that should be carried forward.

DS: Those "best practices"

JB: This document should encourage users, not scare people away.

SD: Web sites developed by different people vary in design. Well-done in full review.

JB: Concern for inconsistencies, such as W3 web site.

JB: Recommend follow up steps, potentially including, repair of certain kinds of problems, doing ongoing maintenance, expanding best practices.

JB: Repair accessibility on pages identified through evaluation process.

HB: For partial evaluations, apply what you've learned to the other similar pages.

HB: Praise the thorough review that has no problems

DS: "Best of breed" praising pages.

JMD: Placement uncertain, but evaluate new documents that use new techniques or types of pages added to site.

JB: Process of evaluating all new types of pages.

HB: Departs 9:30

Doyle starts typing at Time:6:31am Pacific Standard Time

Harvey, I'm keeping up commenting.

Judy, While you're still there, your Wednesday message, I wasn't sure is a re-wording, suggestion? To look at.

Harvey, I don't remember possibly an addition.

Judy, Complete review, and perform four independent tasks

Harvey, no reason to do in the order given. Steps imply a sequence.

Jean Marie, we have to do all of them.

Judy, the wording might be more complex than the first version.

Chuck, I agree with Harvey on that.

Judy, one of the things any time each series… basically between required and optional, that a preliminary review has required and optional. It wasn't so much a problem with sequencing but what is optional.

Judy, something besides performs tasks. Simpler way to say?

Since there is no more comment and I want to come back and look at this section again, thank you Harvey.

Go back to where we were. Next thing on list since Wednesday. Spell checking and grammar not actually part of WCAG conformance. On Wednesday level of language test rather use spelling and grammar. I want to check if this meeting agrees.

Chuck, there is a concern in WCAG about grammar, although not covered in WCAG it is critical on a page.

Judy, counter arguments on Wednesday were the notion of grammar in automated tools runs counter to understandable English.

Doyle, A lot of extra work then generating false positives about grammar problems.

Chuck, verify that spelling and grammar is important to the document.

Judy, another thing to think about informal review. Throw that into preliminary

Doyle, ought to be done anyway when any document is produced in business.

Judy, slippery slope because it introduces ought to be done right rather than detailing the steps to do it right.

Chuck, what choice?… reminder or standard procedure?

Judy, can we make that a duh item on the list? Whatever tests you use what, don't skip best practices to highlight specific things with regard to grammar and spelling.

Doyle, I like the idea.

Judy, I want to check with people. Fairly soon we'll be through ok-ing this. More comments to integrate?

Various voices Assent to continue,

Judy, spelling and grammar is not formerly part of WCAG. Unless when optional. On Wednesday we kept thinking of more and more optional additions.

Kathie, these document or procedures supplement for content management and quality control assurance.

Judy, sound like what you said is?…

Kathie, that sounds right.

Judy, I don't have content management for a business not at that level. Tempted to add to section three.

Chuck, section three needs an intro?

Judy, add a wrapper to it.

Playing with a final addition to this section. The measures described here in the supplement to content management and quality control assurance.

Put in that way in intro.

Sylvie, in which area?

Judy, in section one the intro. Lets just stick in there. Now are we happy dropping spelling and grammar.

Chuck, appeased

Judy, Chuck is now appeased...

I added the clad test, Wendy gave me something about this, it doesn't say your site must work this way, it helps you to figure out what level you want for the site.

Chuck, Clad only available in English.

Judy, yes an English tool, an issue we have to address anyway. Specify as optional.

Chuck, happily Canadian.

Judy, I don't hear Jean Marie on that.

Jean Marie, if we keep the link to Clad we need to specify it is English only.

Judy, we could say for English sites consider using the Clad tests. For fairness to spell what it is clear language and spelling tool.

Everyone assents.

Judy, One of the things, web accessibility guidelines a conformance test approach says that are available on.

Kathie, I don't' think we want to refer to something that doesn't work yet.

Judy, change captions to test equivalent.

Add multiple platforms, not just multiple browsers, MAC, Linux, and Unix.

That is what I have for changes made. I want to go through additional comments that have come in for the list.

Jean Marie, in the section preliminary in the second paragraph. The first review may require downloading. Supplement with on line tools. A person needs to familiarize themselves. Put familiarizing at the beginning of the sentence.

Kathie, may require

Jean Marie, requires familiarizing

Judy, I can't find. Where is it?

Kathie, in intro. Second paragraph.

Jean Marie, The first review may familiarizing

Judy, I will note that needs to be cleaned up for later.

Ok now other stuff. We are going to go through Sylvie's comments. A bunch of reviews. Sylvie sent two messages. Thursday and Friday. I changed the wording already on recommendation from Wendy.

Sylvie, I thought your wording would say only problem not what works.

Judy, possible will not catch all possible? All of the problems right now on a site about accessible is it the all the problems?

Chuck, where are we looking?

Judy, on the list in first paragraph of preliminary review one problem language has changed so it is harder to see. My concern is all problems sounds tentative.

Kathie, you are assuming there are problems.

Judy, do you have a suggested rewording. How about will not catch many accessible problems on a site.

Kathie, if accessibility problems exist the preliminary test will not catch all of them.

Judy, realistically there are problems all over the place.

Chuck, may not catch all the problems on a site.

Judy, doesn't that imply that a preliminary review is adequate.

Chuck, it is the same nebulous world as you say on the other site.

Judy, not to fear because they have done half the steps.

Chuck, they may not consider that they did part of the procedure. I would be happy to change will to may.

Kathie, I would be happy with changing that too.

Judy, people may want? Can I read the language now. The intent of that saying, many potential problems that are not captured on your site, a large class of problems may be on your site. Prelim review may not capture many accessible cannot be identified through this kind of review. Giving people the honest facts. Not about tearing apart a site. Phrase as there are many accessibility problems that cannot be identified through the preliminary and therefore it should not used to determine compliance

Kathie, my only concern using the word many. If this were not going to catch I would go on the comprehensive.

Judy, we have swung back and forth carrot, and stick. The rest to give the honest facts. Do you feel?

Kathie, I don't think the first sentence stands out as a carrot.

Judy, what if we throw in Best Practices.? Ugh

Kathie, I would have an and, and will allow you when you identify the scope of problems once you have identified a problem you end up doing a clean sweep. The same problem can exist on all your pages.

Judy, since we talked about this before and could leave this as is.

Kathie, my question would be what would be the benefit or what to do with this information.

Judy, and allow you to plan the steps. What do people think about this.

Jean Marie, I agree with that. In intro you allow for that.

Judy Sylvie, you raised are you happy.

Next thing in your comments. I don't know the term splash term Jargon? Say welcome pages. Ok?

Sylvie, ok

Chuck, ok

Judy, reviewers may be able to follow. Someone with a disability ask another person. The person may ask someone with another a disability. What that means isn't another disable person, but just another person. Too hard to understand?

Sylvie, just changed something? I read it today and it didn't bother.

Judy, maybe leave as is. Next browser steps, I would add making sure that you can access by tab, clearly indicate where they lead.

Sylvie, what they enter to, sometimes can't enter say in Java. Or return. Keys.

Judy, everyone ok with that?

Kathie, also we will be reworking that.

Sylvie, I agree with Lila about this.

Judy, what about a generic, help page in the browser.

Jean Marie, it is ok for me. We can't explain all the steps.

Judy, we were concerned about making this an infinite task. Another note about browser configuration test the help files, visit the browser web site, and manufacturers web site. Adding a note about experienced screen readers. A fast review why shouldn't we link to lynx viewer? I think this is a misunderstanding. It isn't not about searching for disability. A disabled person ought not to be excluded. Not to have an exclusive process.

Sylvie, That makes sense.

Jean Marie, links viewer?

Judy, Sylvie is suggesting links viewer?

Sylvie, I was thinking about something for example home viewer. If they don't have time if they see what inaccessible through links viewer.

Judy, is links viewer comparable to links me?

I've used links me a lot and it is very unaware of certain kinds of markup. It often gives a much more negative review of site than is true. Use links to getting an accurate rendering. Does anyone know if the links viewer is up to date.

Jean Marie, you have a link to links me in another page.

Judy, what do Sylvie what if we were to start to flip really to download links.

Sylvie, flip?

Judy, reverse the position the test browser comes first. Next if the reviewer follows the preliminary steps are you comfortable with the current summary Sylvie?

Sylvie, yes I am comfortable.

Judy, I guess the intent to do a little bit with the intro to this section where it says the first review may such etc. Our intent the person does not have to know HTML. Does he or she need to be trained.

Doyle, I know from experience that is frequently the case.

Sylvie, when you run an evaluator you should have some knowledge.

How could you

Chuck, you are assuming more than one, add needs to know html.

Judy, I would like to suggest leaving previous sections as is. In the summary section sub bullet three, which now recommends follow-up, add a note that says if the reviewer if apparent problems are identified then go get help.

Doyle, typically how it would happen.

Sylvie, could we add in the summary, provide the report of the validator.

Judy, do people like that?

People assent.

Judy, we need to quickly figure out where we are. We have made it through an enormous amount of detail. I would ask people try to continue on the list. I am happy the participation on the list. I would like to close out by Monday or Tuesday of next week. Whatever clean up happening would people be going out?

Chuck and Doyle yes.

Judy, summing up who assents. Final pass with an edited. Might give a final blessing on Friday. We may not be able to close out on line. Let's see if I can do redraft by mid-week. In addition get to the split proposal. Please put reservations on the list. On Tuesday morning. Please comment yes or no on that. Next scheduled meeting next Friday.

Copyright  ©  1998-2001 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.