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

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

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:20:18 -0400
Message-ID: <5034F8B2.8080209@msu.edu>
To: 'Shadi Abou-Zahra' <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Sarah Swierenga <sswieren@msu.edu>, 'Eval TF' <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Works for me!

Mike

On 8/22/2012 10:30 AM, Sarah Swierenga wrote:
> Hello All,
> I like your proposed text because it implies that website owners are
> responsible for not only fixing accessibility issues in a timely manner, but
> also keeping the pages accessible over time.
> Take care,
> Sarah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:18 AM
> To: Eval TF
> Subject: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF review)
>
> Hi All,
>
> It seems that several people agree on not requiring specific timing for
> removing issues that contradict a published accessibility statement.
>
> However, do we want to least require that such (optionally provided)
> accessibility statements remain valid when they are published?
>
> How about replacing this current text:
> [[
> The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them within
> 10 business days; ]]
>
> with this new text:
> [[
> The website owner commits to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the
> accessibility statement; ]]
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>     Shadi
>
>
> On 22.8.2012 10:03, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>> Hi Peter and all
>>
>> I'm in agreement that it should not be in the scope of the EM.  I was
> replying to someone's question about open comment about the number of days
> to allow a website owner to make corrections.  Thinking about it again, I
> think it might be better to leave this out of the scope entirely, even
> though I advocate providing such an accessibility page.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> 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.
>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
>> v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
>> 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: Friday, 17 August 2012 11:25 PM
>> To: Vivienne CONWAY
>> Cc: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
>> Subject: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF
> review)
>> Vivienne,
>>
>> I appreciate very much your opinion, and your desire of what should be in
> the accessibility statement (that every website should have).  As an
> accessibility advocate, I appreciate the effect that might have on "holding
> website owners feet to the fire".
>> However, I simply don't see that as being in the scope of EvalTF.
>>
>> There is no "compromise" here.  If the work is in scope, then we should
> work on it.  But if the work isn't in scope...
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 8/17/2012 4:26 AM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> 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.
>>
> v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au><mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au><
> mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
> v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com><mailto:v.conway@webkeyit
> .com><mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
>> 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<mailto: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)
>> 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><http://www.w3.org/W
> AI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/co
> mments-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.or
> g/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c2><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conforma
> nce/comments-20120730#c2><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-2012
> 0730#c2>
>>    - #6
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c6><http://www.w3.or
> g/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c6><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conforma
> nce/comments-20120730#c6><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-2012
> 0730#c6>
>> The substantive issues to be opened include:
>>    - #5
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c5><http://www.w3.or
> g/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c5><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conforma
> nce/comments-20120730#c5><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-2012
> 0730#c5>
>>    - #17
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17><http://www.w3.o
> rg/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/confor
> mance/comments-20120730#c17><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-2
> 0120730#c17>
>>    - #32
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32><http://www.w3.o
> rg/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/confor
> mance/comments-20120730#c32><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-2
> 0120730#c32>
>>    - #34
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34><http://www.w3.o
> rg/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/confor
> mance/comments-20120730#c34><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-2
> 0120730#c34>
>>    - #35
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35><http://www.w3.o
> rg/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c35><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/confor
> mance/comments-20120730#c35><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-2
> 0120730#c35>
>> During today's teleconference we will request opening these issues.
>>
>> Best,
>>     Shadi
>>
>>
>> --
>> Oracle
> <http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com><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><http://
> www.oracle.com/commitment><http://www.oracle.com/commitment>  Oracle is
> committed to
>> developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
> [cid:part1.05080307.02080201@oracle.com]<http://www.oracle.com><http://www.o
> racle.com>
>> 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><h
> ttp://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.
>> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [cid:part1.07000307.02010302@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
>> [cid:part4.02010305.03060403@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.
>> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>>

-- 
Michael S. Elledge
Associate Director
Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting
Michigan State University
Kellogg Center
219 S. Harrison Rd Room 93
East Lansing, MI  48824
517-353-8977
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:21:01 GMT

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