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

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

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:01:52 -0700
Message-ID: <503548C0.5020707@oracle.com>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>, Richard Warren <richard.warren@userite.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Shadi,

I think it does make sense for us to discuss ways to report how well a 
web site addresses the various WCAG 2.0 A/AA/AAA SCs in something other 
than a 100% perfect Conformance Claim.  But at some level, aren't we 
already doing that in the Appendix C Reporting Templates?

Are you looking for some sort of short public summary of the Reporting 
Template result?  Because that isn't at all what I'm seeing proposed for 
3.5.2 Step 5.b.  And we have also been discussing in a separate thread 
the idea of a "score" (which would be another way of summarizing the 
Report results).


I very much support what you are suggesting in your last paragraph below 
- and welcome suggests for text for that (which should have nothing to 
do with promises about when something might get fixed or responded to, 
and frankly I think should also not get into any "commits to ensuring 
the accuracy and validity").  It should be, as you wrote, related to the 
differences between WCAG 2.0 Conformance Claims and what is/can be said 
about an entire site after following this methodology.


Peter

On 8/22/2012 1:33 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Kerstin, Richard,
>
> While agree that the current phrasing of remedial action may have gone 
> overboard, I do not think this section should be completely removed.
>
> The section of WCAG 2.0 you refer to clearly says that "Conformance is 
> defined only for Web pages":
>  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims>
>
> My understanding is that to issue a WCAG 2.0 conformance claim for an 
> entire collection of web pages (such as a website) each web page in 
> this collection would need to be evaluated, or at least a rigorous QA 
> process must be put in place to ensure conformance of each web page.
>
> This methodology does not actually do that in most cases (when the 
> websites are too large to evaluate every web page). The sampling 
> procedure is intended to select a sufficiently broad representation of 
> web pages from the website to increase confidence in any statements 
> made about the website, but does not actually ensure conformance of 
> each web page. In my view, WCAG 2.0 conformance claims should not be 
> made by way of this evaluation methodology alone. At most, it can be 
> used to confirm any WCAG 2.0 conformance claims made for the website.
>
> This section is supposed to explain this difference between WCAG 2.0 
> conformance claims for individual web pages, and making statements 
> about entire websites after following a particular methodology. In my 
> view this guidance is needed as part of the methodology.
>
> Regards,
>   Shadi
>
>
> On 22.8.2012 21:40, Kerstin Probiesch wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think we should delete the whole 3.5.2 Step 5.b.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Kerstin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com]
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. August 2012 21:25
>>> An: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Peter Korn
>>> Cc: Eval TF
>>> Betreff: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF
>>> review)
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, the W3C already describes a conformance claim at
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims.
>>> W3C also provides guidance (understanding) for such claims at
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-
>>> conformance-claims-head.
>>>
>>> The current discussion is about an accessibility statement. From many
>>> of the
>>> messages I get the impression that some people want to go beyond W3C's
>>> conformance statement with something that describes how and when any
>>> remedial actions will be taken (if appropriate). It is this extra stuff
>>> that
>>> I am not happy with. I would prefer it if section "3.5.2 Step 5.b:
>>> Provide
>>> an Accessibility Statement (Optional)", were written as
>>>
>>> "3.5.2 Step 5.b: Provide an Accessibility Conformance Claim (Optional).
>>> A conformance claim can be submitted in line with W3C guidance at
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims ",.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Conformance Claims (Optional)
>>>
>>> Conformance is defined only for Web pages. However, a conformance claim
>>> may
>>> be made to cover one page, a series of pages, or multiple related Web
>>> pages.
>>> Required Components of a Conformance Claim
>>>
>>> Conformance claims are not required. Authors can conform to WCAG 2.0
>>> without
>>> making a claim. However, if a conformance claim is made, then the
>>> conformance claim must include the following information:
>>>
>>>      Date of the claim
>>>
>>>      Guidelines title, version and URI "Web Content Accessibility
>>> Guidelines
>>> 2.0 at http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/"
>>>
>>>      Conformance level satisfied: (Level A, AA or AAA)
>>>
>>>      A concise description of the Web pages, such as a list of URIs for
>>> which
>>> the claim is made, including whether subdomains are included in the
>>> claim.
>>>
>>>      Note 1: The Web pages may be described by list or by an expression
>>> that
>>> describes all of the URIs included in the claim.
>>>
>>>      Note 2: Web-based products that do not have a URI prior to
>>> installation
>>> on the customer's Web site may have a statement that the product would
>>> conform when installed.
>>>
>>>      A list of the Web content technologies relied upon.
>>>
>>> Note: If a conformance logo is used, it would constitute a claim and
>>> must be
>>> accompanied by the required components of a conformance claim listed
>>> above.
>>> Optional Components of a Conformance Claim
>>>
>>> In addition to the required components of a conformance claim above,
>>> consider providing additional information to assist users. Recommended
>>> additional information includes:
>>>
>>>      A list of success criteria beyond the level of conformance claimed
>>> that
>>> have been met. This information should be provided in a form that users
>>> can
>>> use, preferably machine-readable metadata.
>>>
>>>      A list of the specific technologies that are "used but not relied
>>> upon."
>>>
>>>      A list of user agents, including assistive technologies that were
>>> used
>>> to test the content.
>>>
>>>      Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the
>>> success
>>> criteria to enhance accessibility.
>>>
>>>      A machine-readable metadata version of the list of specific
>>> technologies
>>> that are relied upon.
>>>
>>>      A machine-readable metadata version of the conformance claim.
>>>
>>> Note 1: Refer to Understanding Conformance Claims for more information
>>> and
>>> example conformance claims.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:07 PM
>>> To: Peter Korn
>>> Cc: Eval TF
>>> Subject: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF
>>> review)
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> The intent of this section, "3.5.2 Step 5.b: Provide an Accessibility
>>> Statement (Optional)", is precisely about accessibility statements to
>>> declare that an evaluation has been carried out according to this W3C
>>> methodology. It is not about accessibility statements in general.
>>>
>>> Suggestions to better clarify the intent of this section are welcome.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>     Shadi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22.8.2012 18:19, Peter Korn wrote:
>>>> Hi Shadi,
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how this is any more within the scope of EvalTF
>>> than
>>>> the
>>>> previous discussion involving a commitment to respond to (or fix)
>>>> accessibility
>>>> issues.  Your proposed text isn't tied to the evaluation methodology
>>> in
>>>> any fashion.
>>>>
>>>> I can imagine that IF the Accessibility Statement (or frankly any
>>> public
>>>> statement) explicitly referenced that the site was self-evaluated (or
>>>> hired
>>>> someone else to evaluate it) following the W3C approved evaluation
>>>> methodology,
>>>> then we might impose some conditions on that public statement.  But I
>>>> don't see
>>>> how it is appropriate to say that if a site evaluates itself for
>>>> accessibility
>>>> using a particular methodology (or worse, some 3rd party entity
>>> evaluates
>>>> that
>>>> site using a particular methodology), that therefore a (potentially
>>>> already
>>>> existing) Accessibility Statement must say anything in particular.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2012 5:18 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>>>> 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@web
>>> keyit.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/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-
>>> 20120730><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>     Shadi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Oracle
>>>>>>
>>> <http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com><h
>>> ttp://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><ht
>>> tp://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.oracle.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/commitme
>>> nt><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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> [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/commitme
>>> nt>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
>>> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
>>> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
>>> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:02:31 GMT

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