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

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

From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:13:02 +0100
Message-ID: <033757BC07AF4526B2C19E783F15C078@DaddyPC>
To: "Peter Korn" <peter.korn@oracle.com>, "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Shadi,

I agree whole heartedly with Peter’s comments re any statement that stipulates how and when corrections should be made. It is not part of the evaluation process to specify specific corrective actions, and certainly not to specify required time-scales (what sanctions would you apply if the timescale is not met?).

I therefore concur with Peter that the draft should not be published with any statement requiring website owners to take specific actions or work within specific timescales

Richard

From: Peter Korn 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:41 PM
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra 
Cc: Eval TF 
Subject: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF review)

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  The intent of this item is to avoid the many outdated and imprecise statements that are frequently found on the Web today.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 






-- 

Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
 Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment 




oracle_sig_logo.gif
(image/gif attachment: oracle_sig_logo.gif)

green-for-email-sig_0.gif
(image/gif attachment: green-for-email-sig_0.gif)

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 22:13:29 GMT

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