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

Fwd: Minutes WCAG 06 Sep 2012

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:04:18 +0200
Message-ID: <504E71F2.2030708@w3.org>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Eval TF,

Please see the minutes from last week's WCAG WG teleconference which was 
dedicated to discussing WCAG WG comments on the methodology.

Best,
   Shadi


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Minutes WCAG 06 Sep 2012
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:22:07 -0400
From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>,  Eric 
Velleman <e.velleman@bartimeus.nl>

Minutes of the 6 September 2012 WCAG meeting are posted to
http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html and copied below.


   Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference


     06 Sep 2012

Agenda <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2012JulSep/0067.html>

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-wai-wcag-irc>


     Attendees

Present
     Kathy, Cooper, Shadi, Bruce_Bailey, Eric_Velleman,
     Gregg_Vanderheiden, David_MacDonald, Cherie_Eckholm,
     +1.206.544.aaaa, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Robin_Tuttle, James_Nurthen
Regrets
Chair
     Loretta_Guarino_Reid
Scribe
     David


     Contents

     * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#agenda>
     * Summary of Action Items
       <http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<trackbot> Date: 06 September 2012

<Loretta> \

<scribe> scribe: David

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904

shadi: completely re-wrote front section to address issues brought up by
WCAG WG, anticipate comments on scope, and in main body, but hoping
framing and big issues hope we took care of it

<shadi> disposition of comments for more details:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG

Loretta: we'll take 10-15 minutes to read it given that there are only 3
responses

<shadi> diff-marked version:
https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120827.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120904.html
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904.html>

<greggvanderheiden> CHANGE "conformance of websites to the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 to " conformance of the pages on
website as a whole to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
2.0" or some such.

Loretta: will resume discussing at 4:20EST in 11 minutes

<MichaelC> #4 - I still want to talk about the relationship of
documents, but can continue that discussion after publication

<MichaelC> #6 - do want to see continued work on the structure of
requirements as the current one doesn't work for me, but ok for that to
be a task for the next draft

<jamesn> Table of Contents: Overview sections says "3. Conformance
Evaluation Procedure", should be "3. Evaluation Procedure"

Would like clarification on: ↕extends the existing guidance ↕ for WCAG 2.0

<MichaelC> #9 - I can take an action to propose the diagram I thought
was needed

<MichaelC> for after this publication

<MichaelC> General comment - some of the comment dispositions indicate
plans for future work or a specific desire for public feedback on the
issue. Especially for the latter, would like to be sure we solicit that
feedback, in the form of editorial notes or review questions. I see some
ednotes there, but not sure they cover all the open questions.

<greggvanderheiden> add a step 3.3.3 1/2 (Between 3.3.3 and 3.3.4) <h>
Include a random sampling of pages not already in structured sample </h>
In addition randomly choose an additional number of pages from the site
equal to 1/3 of the number in the constructed sample so far (so that 25%
of the final sample is random) to ensure that all pages have the
possibility of being sampled (and therefore authors cannot just focus on
the pages likely to be in the

<greggvanderheiden> constructed sample).

<greggvanderheiden> oops

<greggvanderheiden> that should go AFTER 3.3.4 which would make it 3.3.5

<greggvanderheiden> even though you say other techniques can be used --
this seems to contradict that

<greggvanderheiden> For each web page a WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is:

<greggvanderheiden> Met when for each applicable instance of the WCAG
2.0 Success Criterion on the web page at least one Sufficient Technique
is identified to be applicable, and no Common Failure is identified to
be applicable;

<greggvanderheiden> Not met when for any applicable instance of the WCAG
2.0 Success Criterion on the web page at least one Common Failure is
identified to be applicable;

<greggvanderheiden> don't understand the scoring -- sounds like a bad
idea but not sure I understand

Wondering about this: This definition of target users and tools must
meet the terms defined in WCAG 2.0 Level of Assistive Technology Support
Needed for "Accessibility Support" and must be used throughout the
evaluation. For example, it is not possible to evaluate some pages with
one set of tools and other pages with another set. Accessibility support
must be uniform throughout a single website .

<greggvanderheiden> change PRIMARY to COMMON in this

<greggvanderheiden> Common Functionality

<greggvanderheiden> Primary functionality of a website including tasks
that users of a website carry out to perform this functionality.

<greggvanderheiden> Note: Examples of functionality include "selecting
and purchasing a product from the shop area of the website", "filling
and submitting the form provided on the website", and "registering for
an account on the website".

<greggvanderheiden> or just remove PRIMARY

<greggvanderheiden> the primary function of amazon is to buy something

<greggvanderheiden> but if all other functions were inaccessible/

<greggvanderheiden> ?

<greggvanderheiden> and what does buying mean -- can most of the page or
most of the pages be inaccessible and you still can buy things?

wondering about: Basic pass/fail "...and for large-scale evaluations
with less resources to explore the details of individual websites . "
(3.1.2)

<ericvelleman>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step3

<Loretta> Shadi, the only comments in the survey other than supporting
publication is a typo.

GV: would like random sampling approach discussed between 3.3.3 and 3.3.4

BB: Vernacular understanding of random, vs common understanding...

Shadi: not as simple as adding another section.... we might add language
about random to the steps, selecting web pages with distinct types...
can we kick this discussion down the road and place the topic in a note
for this version

GV: not suggesting ONLY random, some structure is certainly necessary,
but have no random sample raises issue of "representative"

Shadi: agree... but suggest random and structured... adding a new
section would be a significant change... delay etc...

GV: perhaps discuss the note providing some indication of possible ways
that you might address the random question... that will get comments
that are helpful

Loretta: should we do another iteration, we have to approve it... or go
to draft now knowing that more will need to be added...

eric: we had sampling in previous draft... tons of discussion and we
pulled it, for more discussion

here's the diff
https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120827.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120904.html
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904.html>

James: concerned about the word conformance

shadi: distinction Section 5 was conformance to THIS methodology... but
"conformance" instances in the doc should relate to WCAG not this
methodology

GV: web sites don't conform to WCAG pages do, can't talk about web sites
that way...

shadi: "with reasonable confidence"

Loretta: I think the conformance issues are addressed ... unless a few
of the 97 current instances of "conformance" got through

<shadi> "It extends the existing guidance for WCAG 2.0 but it does not
define additional WCAG 2.0 requirements nor does it replace or supersede
it in any way"

GV: we'll let it go for now... remembering this conversation

<shadi> [[extends -> complements]]

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/actions/5

<MichaelC> *ACTION:* cooper to work with Kathy on improved process
diagram for the Evaluation Methodology process flow [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-179 - Work with Kathy on improved process
diagram for the Evaluation Methodology process flow [on Michael Cooper -
due 2012-09-13].

<MichaelC> action-179: See also
https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/actions/5

<trackbot> ACTION-179 Work with Kathy on improved process diagram for
the Evaluation Methodology process flow notes added

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step4b

↕extends the existing guidance ↕ for WCAG 2.0 will be changed to
"compliments the existing...."

GV: Concerned "WCAG Sufficient Techniques" may be perceived as required

<greggvanderheiden> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html

GV: maybe we should take an action item to add a common failure
discussion http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html

<Loretta> Perhaps you mean "documented sufficient techniques"?

<shadi> "WCAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance"

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro-layers-guidance

GV: need to fix this section before it goes out... 3.4.2

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step1e

Shadi: 3.4.2 needs to be read in context (3.1.5)

<scribe> *ACTION:* Gregg to make suggested editorial changes to 3.4.2
regarding Sufficient Techs [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-180 - Make suggested editorial changes to
3.4.2 regarding Sufficient Techs [on Gregg Vanderheiden - due 2012-09-13].

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step5c

<shadi> Research Report on Web Accessibility Metrics -
http://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-metrics-report/

gv: need to remove applicable ... because all SCs are applicable 3.3.2
etc...
... Definition of common functionality: .... change PRIMARY to COMMON in
this

<shadi>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#functionality

shadi: can't test EVERY function, therefor need to sample functionality

GV: suggests frequency rather than primary

Shadi: can we remove primary until next

<shadi> [[

<shadi> Web pages from distinct common functionality, as identified per
3.2.2 Step 2.b: Identify Common Functionality of the Website;

<shadi> Web pages from distinct types of web pages, as identified per
3.2.3 Step 2.c: Identify the Variety of Web Page Types;

<shadi> Web pages with distinct web technologies, as identified per
3.2.4 Step 2.d: Identify Technologies Used in the Website.

<shadi> ]]

Shadi: Web pages from distinct common functionality, as identified per
3.2.2 Step 2.b: Identify Common Functionality of the Website;Web pages
from distinct types of web pages, as identified per 3.2.3 Step 2.c:
Identify the Variety of Web Page Types;

Web pages with distinct web technologies, as identified per 3.2.4 Step
2.d: Identify Technologies Used in the Website.

eric: used to be "key functionality"

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step2b

GV: two important things need to change... introduce random samples,
remove primary... to something like frequent or important etc..

eric: I think we can change two things... that will help... we can add a
note about random samples, and can remove primary and editorial choose
something ... to get it out... change extends to compliment.


     Summary of Action Items

*[NEW]* *ACTION:* cooper to work with Kathy on improved process diagram
for the Evaluation Methodology process flow [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
*[NEW]* *ACTION:* Gregg to make suggested editorial changes to 3.4.2
regarding Sufficient Techs [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]

[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
version 1.136 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2012/09/06 22:07:22 $

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

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 Monday, 10 September 2012 23:04:43 GMT

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