W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: methodology and method

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:34:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA7FE44.6030407@dias.de>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Just to clarify:

I was not suggesting to develop "just a rationale" - on the contrary, I 
think the procedure should be as detailed and practically usable as 
possible. In order to ensure this usability from a practical 
perspective, I see a benefit in separating "hands-on" procedure 
answering questions such as "what do I need to do to check whether page 
X conforms to success criterion Y?" from a more general reasoning (or 
rationale) *about* the method. Both together would be the output of EVAL TF.

The table of contents gives us an actual first outline of the 
methodology. Looking at it, my immediate reaction was that I felt that 
there was much in it that provides context and justification but isa 
probably not necessary on the hands-on level (assuming qualification, 
i.e., that background knowledge about HTML and accessibility 
requirements already exists in the tester).

Eric's (I quote) 'very rough first version of the possible table of 
contents' from 14. Oct therefore prompted my response that as a tester 
engaged in checking site X, I would probably not want to wade through 
sections on target audience, references,  definitions etc which in the 
proposed TOC come before the actual procedure.

One solution of course is to keep the procedural part within one large 
methodology document (and maybe delineate it better). I just see 
benefits in separating the "about" bit from the "how to do it" bit 
simply for practical reaons. Of course both docs should cross-reference 
each other whereever necessary (and also refernce other sources we will 
decide to keep and maintain separately).

(wiping brow) Hope it is clearer now..


Am 26.10.2011 14:08, schrieb Velleman, Eric:
> Hi Kerstin,
>
> Just as you say, the aim is to make an Evaluation Methodology for evaluating the conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0. Nothing less. So it is much more than just a rationale. We will include a rationale in the Methodology to explain to people why we made the Methodology.
> Hope this answers your question?
> Kindest regards,
>
> Eric
>
> ________________________________________
> Van: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] namens Kerstin Probiesch [k.probiesch@googlemail.com]
> Verzonden: woensdag 26 oktober 2011 10:56
> Aan: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org; 'Shadi Abou-Zahra'
> Onderwerp: AW: methodology and method
>
> Hi Shadi, all,
>
> can please someone from the stuff or the facilitator finally clarify if the goal of this TF is to develop just a rationale (justification) or a methodology? Methodology is defined as: "a guideline for solving a problem, with specific components such as phases, tasks, _methods_, techniques and tools". As written on http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/#methodology (WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology): "The purpose of this work is to develop an internationally harmonized methodology for evaluating the conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0."
>
> Best
>
> Kerstin
>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wai-evaltf-
>> request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Detlev Fischer
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Oktober 2011 09:56
>> An: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
>> Betreff: Re: methodology and method
>>
>> Hi Shadi,
>>
>> no, clearly there is no need to explain why accessibility an its
>> evaluation is important, that's a given. In my view, the rationale (or
>> methodology) explains anf justifies the logic or rationale of the
>> hands-on method / approach specified, which in turn just covers the
>> things that testers need to know to carry out an evaluation
>> competently.
>>
>> For example, the methodology would briefly state (with reference to
>> WCAG
>> conformance requirement 3) that complete processes must be accessible
>> because the success of the completed interaction counts. It would then
>> describe how a complete process is to be reflected in a page or page
>> state selection, including, possibly, a statement that repetitive
>> content (such as a navigation context that doesn't change across the
>> process) can be ignored, or tested just once.
>> To give an example what this would mean on the level of implemented
>> testing applicaton: the BITV-Test offers the option for the test of
>> selected elements, like a lightbox. This avoids the possible distortion
>> of having repeatedly postive results for basically the same page /
>> template.
>>
>> The rationale might also explain why processes after selection should
>> be
>> assigned a priority depending on their importance for the successful
>> use
>> of a site, and that this priority might play a part in the tolerance
>> metrics and the final verdict (conformant / not conformant). For
>> Amazon,
>> comleting a purchase at checkout would be crucial while writing a
>> produict comment might be considered ancillary and much less crucial.
>> The methodology must argue all these things, for the tester, they are
>> of
>> little practical value in the process.
>>
>> Felle free to forward to the list if you think it might help others
>> understand my argument...
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Detlev
>>
>> Am 26.10.2011 09:24, schrieb Shadi Abou-Zahra:
>>> Hi Detlev,
>>>
>>> Just to understand what you mean by "rationale": are you suggesting
>> that
>>> Eval TF develops a document explaining why it is important to
>> evaluate
>>> websites for accessibility? This is not in the initial plan.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Shadi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25.10.2011 22:08, Detlev Fischer wrote:
>>>> I think the rationale (methodology) needs to be well argued and
>>>> referenced and cannot really be very short. It is just a type of
>>>> document that has a different purpose and audience compared to a
>>>> succinct procedural instruction. The latter should be optimised for
>> the
>>>> practitioner tackling a website and should have little or no
>> theoretical
>>>> ballast.
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Shadi Abou-Zahra<shadi@w3.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Detlev,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what the others think but I'm not convinced we need
>> two
>>>>> documents. The "rationale, audience&  scope, rationale of sampling"
>>>>> sections should probably be very short to set the scene for the
>> main
>>>>> sections but maybe this is unclear from the table of contents
>> alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Shadi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25.10.2011 09:45, Detlev Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Shadi, hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I made a suggestion a while ago to decouple the methodology
>> (rationale)
>>>>>> from the method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Methodology: rationale, audience&  scope, rationale of sampling
>>>>>> and sampling methods, measurement of score / tolerances,
>>>>>> references etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Method: a usable procedure for the actual testing of websites,
>> e.g.:
>>>>>> - make entry check (site applicable for testing)
>>>>>> - select WCAG level applied (A, AA, AAA)
>>>>>> - define page sample, select states and processes
>>>>>> - run through procedure proper, with checkpoints based on WCAG
>>>>>> success criteria and all checks needed to test whether the sites
>>>>>> meets them - which in case of 1.1.1 and 1.3.1 probably means
>>>>>> several checkpoints
>>>>>> - generate report and, if applicable, conformance statement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason is simply that the procedure gets lost in the draft
>> Table of
>>>>>> Contents. We also need to think from a point of view of the users
>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Detlev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 18.10.2011 11:59, schrieb Shadi Abou-Zahra:
>>>>>>> Hi Detlev,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe we agreed that the Methodology would explain how to use
>> WCAG
>>>>>>> 2.0 Techniques for evaluating web page samples rather than to
>>>>>>> duplicate
>>>>>>> them or to create synthesized versions of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we go down that route we risk re-interpreting WCAG or running
>> into
>>>>>>> maintenance issues for chasing web technologies as they are
>> released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should, as far as possible, decouple the Methodology
>> from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> detailed "alt-text checking"-level; this is already covered by
>> WCAG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having said that, I can imagine improvements to the "How to Meet
>>>>>>> WCAG2"
>>>>>>> quick reference [1], to better address the need of evaluators
>> rather
>>>>>>> than developers. For example by organizing the Techniques
>> thematically
>>>>>>> rather than by Success Criteria. However, this would be separate
>> work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Shadi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18.10.2011 11:24, Detlev Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 18.10.2011 09:14, schrieb Shadi Abou-Zahra:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Detlev,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 18.10.2011 08:39, Detlev Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Shady,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am still not sure how we can clearly delineate the
>> difference
>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>> the wider term "web content" (as in WCAG) and "website" as
>>>>>>>>>> explained on
>>>>>>>>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology-reqs/#website>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agree, this is a challenge that we need to address.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should clearly state in the definition whether
>> "website"
>>>>>>>>>> includes any content offered via plugin technologies like
>> Flash?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I understand it, "website" includes any web content as
>> defined by
>>>>>>>>> WCAG 2.0, which would include Flash and other web technologies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thisa has practical implications. For example, if Flash would
>> be
>>>>>>>>>> included, the testing procedure would then either have to be
>> *very*
>>>>>>>>>> general (actually more general than in many tests of
>> techniques,
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> do reference tools like aDesigner2) or fork depending on HTML,
>>>>>>>>>> FLASH,
>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand this rationale. There are already
>> WCAG 2.0
>>>>>>>>> Techniques for Flash. Maybe not yet a complete set but enough
>> to
>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>> how the Methodology would utilize existing WCAG 2.0 Techniques.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess the procedure would either reference, as planned, tests
>> in
>>>>>>>> individual techniques (HTML, CSS, Flash, etc) which means it
>> would be
>>>>>>>> very bitty and carry a lot of redundancy, or it would offer a
>>>>>>>> practical
>>>>>>>> synthesis from a hands-on point of view and thereby, add
>> practical
>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>> for testers. When checking for alt texts, for example, there
>> will be
>>>>>>>> many applicable techniques which are often mutually exclusive.
>> If I
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> "list images" in WAT to trundle through the images of a web page
>> and
>>>>>>>> check whether alt texts descripe content (unlinked images),
>> indicate
>>>>>>>> link target or purpose (linked images) or are empty (decorative
>>>>>>>> images),
>>>>>>>> the economic procedure is to synthesize the assessment as you go
>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>> the list. No one would *actually* step through the atomic tests
>> again
>>>>>>>> and again. It would also be disruptive from an operational
>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>> You want to have *one* page which tells you what to do and how
>> to
>>>>>>>> assess
>>>>>>>> the instances you find (for some complex SC like 1.1.1 and
>> 1.3.1,
>>>>>>>> it may
>>>>>>>> be several, of course).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So back to my original rationale:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either the test procedure is generic and says "Check all images
>> opn
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> page to verify that the alt attribute is present and
>> appropriate"
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> hardly goes beyond the text of WCAG Guideline 1.1. and is
>>>>>>>> therefore of
>>>>>>>> questionable merit, or it would present some sort of decision
>> tree
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> recommends a sequence or path through options and thereby
>> synthesizes
>>>>>>>> the atomic tests necessary to check for conformance to a
>> particular
>>>>>>>> SC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, if we deal with HTML/CSS/JS content but also FLASH content,
>> this
>>>>>>>> might then apear as a choice at some point the decision tree:
>> you
>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>> if FLASH is used, fork to applicable Flash tests (or a procedure
>>>>>>>> syntheizing tests), the return to check HTML (just as an
>> example). It
>>>>>>>> just makes an already complex HTML-oriented test procedure still
>> more
>>>>>>>> complex.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just as an aside: in BIT-Test we deal with this problem in a
>> 'silo
>>>>>>>> approach': we (will) offer separate WCAG-based tests for
>> different
>>>>>>>> media
>>>>>>>> (HTML/CSS/JS, PDF, maybe some day Flash).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I personally think (and I have said this before) that a test
>>>>>>>> procedure
>>>>>>>> that integrates atomic tests and offers advice regarding the
>>>>>>>> success of
>>>>>>>> failure of instances checked is the actual added value in
>> practical
>>>>>>>> terms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Detlev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Shadi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Detlev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.10.2011 15:15, schrieb Shadi Abou-Zahra:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Detlev, All,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17.10.2011 10:15, Detlev Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have now fully caught up with the discussion of the term
>>>>>>>>>>>> "website"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> I realise it can be (or has been) defined to include web
>> apps
>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct:
>>>>>>>>>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology-reqs/#website>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Still, since the term "website" has been avoided in the
>> title of
>>>>>>>>>>>> WCAG
>>>>>>>>>>>> and also carries connotations of a traditional hierachical
>>>>>>>>>>>> site, ist
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems more congenial to me to use "Web content" instead
>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>> if it
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes the acronym still thornier).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not about the acronym but rather about the scope of
>> WCAG
>>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>>> that of the Methodology. Web content is used to build
>> websites.
>>>>>>>>>>> WCAG
>>>>>>>>>>> applies to any web content while our Methodology is limited
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> websites.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should either use the term "website" to denote
>> static
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> dynamic web pages, web applications, intranets, mobile sites,
>>>>>>>>>>> etc, or
>>>>>>>>>>> come up with another term that applies to websites in their
>>>>>>>>>>> entirety.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Shadi
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Detlev
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 17.10.2011 08:40, schrieb kvotis@iti.gr:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i aggree with the following comment of Detlev and this was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a previous mail. I cannot understand why we are
>> refereeing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Websites. I think that we need a more general term
>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Web
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications, Mobile Web applications,etc...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kostas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back from holidays, I am trying to catch up with
>> discussions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not mind WAEM even though I do not think it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pronounce (other then spelling out double-U - E - A -
>> M).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have some concern regarding the W for "website", as in
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology". The "WC"
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WCAG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sounds a lot more general than the term "website". This
>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the important comments by Aaron Leventhal regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the methodology, tool independence, and the possible need
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different web content and UA scenarios.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is what we develop here focused on websites and not on
>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apps for mobile UAs? If we want to be as general as WCAG
>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to change the full name of the methodology and
>> accordingly, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acronym.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Detlev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zitat von "Velleman, Eric"<evelleman@bartimeus.nl>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We decided in the call to discuss the short name in the
>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are some short names from the discussions we had sofar
>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed shortlist of requirements:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Requirements for a short name:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It should be short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Easy to pronounce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Clear to all what it means (selfexplanatory)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Be about the methodology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shortnames (Make your choice or add new ones):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SiteAccess
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WCAG-Method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WCAG-EM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WAEM (really using the title)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WCAG-Check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - AccessSite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WCAG-Site
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - AccessCheck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SiteCheck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CheckSite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WAMBAM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WAME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - MCEWA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CEWA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CEW2WCAG2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - UWEM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SITE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - MAWA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - MDWC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - EWAMAC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - EMAWC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - WEM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Detlev Fischer PhD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im
>> Sozialen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gesch?ftsf?hrung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
>>>>> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
>>>>> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
>>>>> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Detlev Fischer PhD
>>>> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
>>>> Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>>>>
>>>> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
>>>> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
>>>> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
>>>> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
>>>>
>>>> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
>>>> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
>>>> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Detlev Fischer PhD
>> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
>> Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>>
>> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
>> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
>> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
>> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
>>
>> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
>> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
>> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Detlev Fischer PhD
DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp

Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
E-Mail: fischer@dias.de

Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 12:34:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT