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

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

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:26:22 +0800
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9CAB0E4CA31@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
Hi Peter & TF

I'm of the opinion that the methodology needs to address the issue of how quickly identified problems are acted upon.  If there is an accessibility statement (and personally I'm of the view that there should be one), it should state how the website owner intends to act upon problems identified by the users.  I don't necessarily say that we should state '10' days, or even '5' or '20'.  I think though that the website owner should be compelled to respond within a certain number of days.  I agree that some changes as we discussed, will take longer to fix in very large websites.

Can we compromise and say that problems identified must be responded to within a number of days (maybe 10, maybe not), and that they will be dealt with as quickly as possible, with the complainant kept apprised of the remediation efforts?


Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.

From: Peter Korn [peter.korn@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 11:41 PM
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
Cc: Eval TF
Subject: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF review)


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?


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.


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.



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><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><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c2>
 - #6 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c6><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><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c5>
 - #17 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17>
 - #32 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32>
 - #34 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34>
 - #35 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35>

During today's teleconference we will request opening these issues.


Oracle <http://www.oracle.com><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><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<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
[cid:part4.09000705.09050309@oracle.com]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.


(image/gif attachment: oracle_sig_logo.gif)

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

Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 11:30:10 UTC

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