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 16:51:18 -0700
Message-ID: <50357076.6080002@oracle.com>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
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 GMT

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