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

Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF review)

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:41:45 -0700
Message-ID: <502D14B9.5090105@oracle.com>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Shadi,

I recognize that it is optional.  BUT... by spelling out what EvalTF 
thinks it should contain, you are putting the weight of W3C behind it, 
creating a sort of "sanctioned statement".  This means that a certain 
degree of care is necessary in crafting what that "sanctioned statement" 
should be.  AND because - as you note - there are many statements out 
there presently, the (apparently intended) effect of someone adopting 
the EvalTF methodology is that they would HAVE to change their existing 
statement in order to conform to EvalTF or to drop making any statement 
altogether (since EvalTF says that if there is a statement, it shall be X).

I think that is significantly coercive, and because of that, such an - 
even optional - statement must not be prescriptive.

Does that make sense?


Peter

On 8/16/2012 8:36 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Providing an accessibility statement is optional. This means that any 
> organization can continue to use its own procedures.
>
> The intent of this item is to avoid the many outdated and imprecise 
> statements that are frequently found on the Web today.
>
> As discussed today, we agreed to open an issue to continue this 
> discussion after publication. It would help to see what wording you 
> would like to have changed before publication.
>
> Regards,
>   Shadi
>
>
> On 16.8.2012 16:48, Peter Korn wrote:
>> Hi Shadi,
>>
>> I am very uncomfortable with the proposed text in "3.5.2 Step 5.b 
>> Provide an
>> Accessibility Statement (optional)".  I'm particularly uncomfortable 
>> with the
>> suggestion that the website owner must make a commitment to 
>> address/respond/fix
>> issues brought to their attention within any specific number of 
>> (business) days
>> as a condition of being an "Eval TF compliant accessibility 
>> statement".  I don't
>> think the draft should be published with this text as it current is.
>>
>> I think it would be OK to enumerate a suggested set of topics to be 
>> addressed in
>> an optional accessibility statement (e.g. to suggest that an 
>> accessibility
>> statement speak to how the website owner will respond to issues 
>> brought to their
>> attention), but not more than that.
>>
>> Websites & companies may have accessibility statements already, and 
>> we don't
>> want to force them to change those statements or remove them in order 
>> to adopt
>> the EvalTF methodology.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 8/16/2012 6:39 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>> Dear Eval TF,
>>>
>>> Eric, Martijn, and I have been processing the comments from Eval TF 
>>> on the
>>> latest Editor Draft of 30 July 2012. Please review this by *Monday 
>>> 20 August*
>>> and let us know if you have any comments or questions:
>>>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730>
>>>
>>> Most comments seem fairly straight-forward to address with some 
>>> minor tweaks
>>> and re-writes. Proposed resolutions for these are indicated in this
>>> disposition of comments.
>>>
>>> Other comments primarily related to editing and writing style. This 
>>> might be
>>> best done together with the Education and Outreach Working Group 
>>> (EOWG) who
>>> will start getting involved when we next publish. We propose opening 
>>> an issue
>>> for these comments to discuss them with EOWG.
>>>
>>> Finally, several comments will likely need further discussion by the 
>>> group
>>> before they can be resolved effectively. We propose opening an issue 
>>> for each
>>> of these rather than to hold up the publication.
>>>
>>> The editorial issues to be opened include:
>>>  - #2 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c2>
>>>  - #6 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c6>
>>>
>>> The substantive issues to be opened include:
>>>  - #5 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c5>
>>>  - #17 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17>
>>>  - #32 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32>
>>>  - #34 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34>
>>>  - #35 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35>
>>>
>>> During today's teleconference we will request opening these issues.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>   Shadi
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
>> developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>>
>

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 15:42:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:14 GMT