W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > August 2012

Fwd: Minutes WCAG 30 Aug 2012

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:07:10 +0200
Message-ID: <5040548E.4010606@w3.org>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Eval TF,

As discussed, Eric and I joined WCAG WG teleconference yesterday to 
further discuss some of their comments and concerns. Kathy was also 
present. Below are the (light) minutes for your background.

Essentially the biggest concern seems to be the normative language and 
approach used in this document while it is informative. There are also 
requests to further clarify that this methodology is *a* possible way to 
evaluate website conformance rather than *the* only way.

There were several suggestions made during the call and in the minutes 
below. Eric and I will be working on addressing these in an updated 
Editor Draft that we expect to circulate early next week.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Minutes WCAG 30 Aug 2012
Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:13:47 +0000
Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:13:31 -0400
From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Minutes of the 30 August 2012 WCAG meeting are posted to
http://www.w3.org/2012/08/30-wai-wcag-minutes.html and copied below.

   Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

     30 Aug 2012

Agenda <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0061.html>

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2012/08/30-wai-wcag-irc>


     Robin_Tuttle, Bruce_Bailey, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Shadi, andrew,
     Kathy_Wahlbin, adam_solomon, Eric_Velleman, Cooper,
     Andi_Snow_Weaver, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Marc_Johlic, [Microsoft],


     * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2012/08/30-wai-wcag-minutes.html#agenda>
     * Summary of Action Items


<trackbot> Date: 30 August 2012

<scribe> scribe: shadi

updated draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827




[[This document specifies an internationally harmonized methodology for
evaluating the accessibility conformance of existing websites to the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. It defines an approach for
conformance evaluation of entire websites as opposed to page-by-page
evaluation that is already defined by WCAG 2.0]] ... [[Website owners,
procurers, suppliers, developers, and others are frequently tasked with
assessing the conformance of existing websites to the Web Content 
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0]]

GV: "an internationally harmonized" -> "a methodology"
... remove "to WCAG 2.0"
... need random sample to ensure confidence

EV: want public input to further improve the sampling procedure

TF Work Statment [[The objective of Eval TF is to develop an
internationally harmonized methodology for evaluating the conformance of
websites to WCAG 2.0]] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws

GV: not suggesting change of scope but rather wording
... "reasonable confidence" is a good phrase to consider
... remove "*entire* website" ... not asserting that entire site is
... mix sampling between most used, critical, and random

<ericvelleman> Great input from Gregg


GV: using normative language

LGR: less than a quarter directly WCAG
... need more review before publishing

MC: don't want to publish with confusing language between normative and

SAZ: wonder if the public provides the right answer for this type of

EV: would like to get input from the public
... still does not resolve the issue of confusion, regardless if NOTE or REC
... may reinforce that this is THE rather than A methodology
... "Methodology Requirement" rather than "Requirement" in addition to
the changes in the Abstract and Introduction sections

LGR: like the idea of using "Methodology Requirement"

MC: add note that the term "Methodology Requirement" is temporary and as
for public input


<Loretta> Typo: Requirement 4 twice in section 5.

GV: defines *this* methodology, so quite normative

LGR: ambiguity with "WCAG conformance"
... another example of normativity labnguage

[[However, it is required that the following requirements defined by
this methodology are met]]

EV: [[However, it is required by this methodology that the following
requirements are met]]

GV: if you have any requirements at all then it is a standard
... can't even have "must", "shall", "require"
... if want a standard then has to be normative
... otherwise cannot use normative language
... could provide several methods
... people could select between these methods
... or could just describe the method
... not sure what the benefit of the "must"s is
... possibly can achieve the same goal without using normative language

EV: when people select one of several methods, they still need to follow
particular steps
... would replace "Requirement" with "step" help?

GV: yes, just describe the process

LGR: would be OK with making language as clear as possible and adding
editor notes for public feedback

GV: taking the normative language out may get readers more focused on
the actual content
... not sure of benefits of making REC other than referencability, such
as by policies

<Loretta> If we want to go toward a normative methodology, it would help
to separate the WCAG-specific info from the general website evaluation

<Loretta> I'm not sure how many of us will be at TPAC.



     Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
version 1.136 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2012/08/30 21:54:18 $



Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 06:07:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:22 UTC