- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:51:18 -0700
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <50357076.6080002@oracle.com>
Shadi, I think part of my problem is the term "Accessibility Statement", which is something that quite a few sites already have. I think it might help us if we renamed what we are talking about to be "Conformance Statement", and expressly define it as a public statement around the use of this methodology. THEN I think we can explore what things must be (and not be) in such a statement, etc. Make sense? Peter On 8/22/2012 4:24 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 22.8.2012 23:01, Peter Korn wrote: >> 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? > > We primarily address this in the required Step 5.a on documenting the > results and in the optional Step 5.c on providing performance scores. > Appendix C provides examples to support Step 5.a. > > >> 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). > > The optional Step 5.b addresses the situation when someone decides to > public an accessibility statement to declare that the website conforms > with WCAG 2.0 according to this particular methodology. > > >> 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. > > I think this is the discussion that is needed. > > However, don't we need to avoid misrepresentation of this methodology > when people make inaccurate statements? Inaccurate statements, for > example because they are outdated, could undermine the credibility of > the entire methodology. > > Best, > Shadi > > >> 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 >> > -- 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 23:51:53 UTC