W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2012

Minutes WCAG 30 Aug 2012

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:13:31 -0400
Message-ID: <503FE58B.6000905@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>


    Attendees

Present
    Robin_Tuttle, Bruce_Bailey, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Shadi, andrew,
    Kathy_Wahlbin, adam_solomon, Eric_Velleman, Cooper,
    Andi_Snow_Weaver, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Marc_Johlic, [Microsoft],
    David_MacDonald
Regrets
    Moe_Kraft
Chair
    Loretta_Guarino_Reid
Scribe
    shadi


    Contents

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

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

<trackbot> Date: 30 August 2012

<scribe> scribe: shadi

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

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20120830evaltf/results

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c7

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c12

[[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 exi

sting 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
conformant
... mix sampling between most used, critical, and random

<ericvelleman> Great input from Gregg

<ericvelleman>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c7

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
informative

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

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

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG#c12

<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
parts.

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

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf#meetings

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/track/


    Summary of Action Items

[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: 2012/08/30 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 Thursday, 30 August 2012 22:13:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 August 2012 22:13:47 GMT