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

RE: Agenda EvalTF 26 January

From: Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:33:15 -0500
To: "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002a01ccdb55$22305e00$66911a00$@interactiveaccessibility.com>
Regrets, I will not be able to be on the call this week. I am presenting at
the ATIA conference in Orlando.

Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:55 AM
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Agenda EvalTF 26 January

Dear Eval TF,

The next teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 26 January 2012 at:
  * 15:00 to 16:00 UTC
  * 16:00 to 17:00 Central European Time (time we use as reference)
  * 10:00 to 11:00 North American Eastern Time (ET)
  * 07:00 to 08:00 North American Pacific Time (PT)
  * 23:00 to 24:00 Western Australia Time

Please check the World Clock Meeting Planner to find out the precise date
for your own time zone:
  - <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html>

The teleconference information is: (Passcode 3825 - "EVAL")
  * +1.617.761.6200
  * SIP / VoIP -http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP

We also use IRC to support the meeting: (http://irc.w3.org)
  * IRC server: irc.w3.org
  * port: 6665
  * channel: #eval


AGENDA:

#1. Welcome, Scribe.

#2. Specific discussion on section 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8 We need the text to be
clearer on what key functionality adds to complete processes. Complete
processes are well defined, but not all functionality on a website falls
within complete processes.
Some site owners might argue that parts of their website fall outside of the
scope of the evaluation like the video's they point to on their Youtube
channel, the electronic banking section of their banksite etc. How can an
evaluator decide if this is a valid exception.
Or as happens sometimes, a site owner places a part of the website on
another website to avoid accessibility issues. They do however point
directly to that website, or even link directly to it from the main or sub
menu.

The link to subclause 3.8 is made because it could also be possible to
divide the evaluation of a website into multiple evaluations. Each
evaluation could have its own scope. The total of the evaluations would
cover the complete website. A few questions would be: Does each evaluation
lead to a separate report? Is there to be a clear relation between the
reports? How do we show that an evaluation is only part of a collection (in
the report probably?


#3. Specific discussion on section 5.1 Manual and machine evaluation We are
making a methodology for full evaluation of a website. This is not possible
when only using machine evaluation. But it is also not a good idea to do a
complete full evaluation manually. If people use tools, they can render very
different results. Even one tool can change over time. Do we need to say
things about the tools? Set general requirements for them to enhance
replicability. This could just be by asking evaluators to state what tools
they used, date, version, etc. But we could also ask them to check the tools
with a specific control mechanism to be sure that the tools do what they
expect.

#4. Evaluation section.
We will start this section next week. If there is time, we can do a short
introduction.

Regards,

Eric
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 11:33:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT