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

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

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:24:09 +0200
Message-ID: <50356A19.50300@w3.org>
To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
CC: 'Richard Warren' <richard.warren@userite.com>, 'Eval TF' <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Kerstin,

On 22.8.2012 23:02, Kerstin Probiesch wrote:
> Hi Shadi, all,
>
> If this section is needed (I'm not convinced), then it shouldn't be just
> optional, or?

Please provide argumentation for why you are not convinced and why it 
should not be optional. I don't think we can require someone to publish 
an accessibility statement but we can define requirements for when 
someone publishes an accessibility statement according to WCAG-EM.


> Another issue for me is: I'm worrying a bit about all these optional
> sections. If one evaluator uses the methodology without the optional
> sections and another one with them it looks like two different methodologies
> or that the other one is doing better work. But this is another problem...

Yes, it is another problem. Please start a new thread if you identify 
concrete issues that would impact the *evaluation outcome*. However, 
please note that we need to address evaluations in different types of 
contexts and situations.

Thanks,
   Shadi


> Best
>
> Kerstin
>
>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. August 2012 22:33
>> An: Kerstin Probiesch; Richard Warren
>> Cc: Eval TF
>> Betreff: Re: AW: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval
>> TF review)
>>
>> 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)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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)
>
>

-- 
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)
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 23:24:37 GMT

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