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

Re: Accessibility Statements; including page states and more complex processes

From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:46:09 +0200
Cc: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C0D3FD73-37BD-437F-B185-CFB4D742D9D3@testkreis.de>
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Re: Accessibility Statements:
Since conformance claims are already covered (as optional!) in WCAG  
2.0 itself, with required and optional components, I see no harm in  
dropping it in the current draft or WCAG-EM. I fully agree with Peter  
that we should focus on the trickier aspects of evaluating web  
applications (or, in simpler cases, web pages that have different  
states invoked by the user after the initial loading).

Including states and processes:
The problem is that prescriptions towards selecting common processes  
and states to be included in the sample are hard to put in a way that  
they would make sense for all forseeable applications of WCAG-EM. We  
may deal with a simple lightbox (here, "page state' is fine) or with  
the equivalent of a complex decision tree the consequent states of  
which may depend on user input (say, has a credit card number provided  
by the user been verified or not). In suggesting 'page states' I was  
aiming at a level of abstraction which might on a basic level apply to  
both the simple case (a lightbox) and the most complex - after all,  
any complex interaction might be captured as a linked series of page  
states (sometimes leading to another page), if I am not mistaken.

The big problem is then how to capture and document in the sample the  
states of more complex processes without incrementing the sample size  
exponentially and turning the evaluation into a nightmare (it can  
already be very time-consuming to restore previous states when looking  
at straightforward processes - now think of dozens of process  
variants...). The problem is also specifying (without being overly  
prescriptive) what branches of the process space the evaluator should  
include if there are simply too many to cover them all (cue the  
distinction core/common vs. ancillary).

I may try to come up with some (very tentative) wording for others to  
improve or reject. I am pretty sure it won't be easy...


On 17 Aug 2012, at 04:16, Peter Korn wrote:

> Michael,
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but where is the word  
> "accountability" or the phrase "conformance claim" in our work  
> statement?  I don't see anything in the Objective or Approach  
> portions that directs us to develop text for this.
> Remember that our work is supposed to support a variety of contexts,  
> including self-assessment (e.g. for an org to use as part of its own  
> testing & development cycle).  Nothing about accountability or  
> public statements in those contexts.
> I'm also mindful that we are trying to get another public draft out  
> as we work toward "first release" in December 2012, a year ahead of  
> the final release in December 2013.  We still have lots of core  
> evaluation questions to work through - not least of which are those  
> related to web applications that utilize technologies like  
> Javascript & ARIA.  Is now the right time for us to be worrying  
> about the precise required text in an optional accessibility  
> statement a consumer of our December 2013 work product might make?
> I stand by my words from this morning (my time): I don't think this  
> public draft should go out with this text.  Let's keep a placeholder  
> for our thoughts on an optional accessibility statement in this  
> public draft, and focus our energies on how to evaluate the hairier  
> aspects of modern websites.
> Regards,
> Peter
> On 8/16/2012 6:49 PM, Michael S Elledge wrote:
>> Hi Peter--
>> My intent was to suggest a solution that would address your  
>> concerns of W3C over-reach, while ensuring that there is  
>> accountability for people making conformance claims.
>> Since we are discussing whether we should address conformance  
>> claims in our document it also makes sense to discuss what they  
>> might contain.
>> Mike
>> On Aug 16, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>> Reading Richard's comment - and the WCAG WG feedback summary e- 
>>> mail - prompted me to review again the EvalTF Work Statement.
>>> What in our statement of work suggests that it is within our scope  
>>> to define how a site that evaluates using our methodology shall  
>>> respond to e-mail from folks unrelated to the evaluation?   
>>> Likewise what in our work statement suggests          that it is  
>>> within our scope to define how a site that evaluates using our  
>>> methodology shall provide estimates about ANYTHING for doing work  
>>> suggested by folks unrelated to the evaluation?
>>> I can perhaps see how it might be in scope for someone using our  
>>> methodology to be asked to behave in certain ways with evaluators  
>>> they have expressly sought to evaluate their site using our  
>>> methodology.  But none of the rest of what you are           
>>> suggesting seems germane to the task we've been assigned in this  
>>> task force.
>>> Regards,
>>> Peter
>>> On 8/16/2012 4:45 PM, Michael S Elledge wrote:
>>>> What if we suggest that organizations using compliance statements  
>>>> post issues brought to their attention with a best faith estimate  
>>>> of when they'd be addressed?
>>>> Mike
>>>> On Aug 16, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "RichardWarren" <richard.warren@userite.com 
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
>>>>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>>>>> Phone: +1 650 5069522
>>>>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>>>>> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing  
>>>>> practices and products that help protect the environment
>>> -- 
>>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
>>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>>> Phone: +1 650 5069522
>>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>>> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing  
>>> practices and products that help protect the environment
> -- 
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing  
> practices and products that help protect the environment

Detlev Fischer
testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese
c/o feld.wald.wiese
Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof)
22765 Hamburg

Tel   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3
Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84
Fax   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 06:44:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:21 UTC