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: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:28:16 +0100
Message-ID: <433310FA3AEB4A53BCB2277912E1EBC7@DaddyPC>
To: "Vivienne CONWAY" <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>, "Peter Korn" <peter.korn@oracle.com>, "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Vivienne,

I am sorry to be a bit thick here, but I am not sure that I understand what 
your are getting at. Are you saying that
1) our evaluation method requires that the owner of the site has a published 
accessibility statement (similar to a privacy statement) or
2) are you suggesting that our methodology will provide an accessibility 
statement for the owner to publish, or
3) are you saying that our methodology should, if the site fails, issue a 
statement of non-conformance  ?

In cases 1 & 2, accessibility statements on the website have no impact upon 
the actual accessibility of the site and are therefore not within our remit.
In case 3 (issuing a statement of non-conformance) we cannot (should not) 
ask the owner to publish such a statement, nor are we in a position to 
stipulate any timescale. Suppose we say ten days - is this ten working days 
or ten calendar days?. If working days then a team of ten would complete the 
work in one day whilst a part-timer (1 day per week) would take ten weeks! 
If calendar days - do we allow for bank holidays etc.?

My understanding is that our methodology is to enable reliable and 
consistent reporting of conformance for sites that comply with the agreed 
WCAG level (see http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html). 
As added value for sites that do not comply we could/would identify issues 
that fail. But the job of suggestion how, in what priority and in with what 
effort is my job as a consultant (for which I am paid!) and only relevant if 
I undertake an In-Depth Analysis (3.5.1 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120730#step5a ).



-----Original Message----- 
From: Vivienne CONWAY
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:26 PM
To: Peter Korn ; Shadi Abou-Zahra
Cc: Eval TF
Subject: RE: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF review)

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 

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 
suggestion that the website owner must make a commitment to 
issues brought to their attention within any specific number of (business) 
as a condition of being an "Eval TF compliant accessibility statement".  I 
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 
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 
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 
and let us know if you have any comments or questions:

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 
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 
of these rather than to hold up the publication.

The editorial issues to be opened include:
- #2 
- #6 

The substantive issues to be opened include:
- #5 
- #17 
- #32 
- #34 
- #35 

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
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.

Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 19:28:55 UTC

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