Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference -- 06 Sep 2012

<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

<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

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.

- DRAFT -

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

06 Sep 2012

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output