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 16:58:01 -0700
Message-ID: <50357209.5080908@oracle.com>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Shadi,

Following up on this thought, I can imagine an "Summary Conformance 
Statement" and a "Detailed Conformance Statement".  The later would 
would essentially be a repackaging for the Step 5.a documentation of 
results, while the former would be some high level summary.  I think the 
summary would be the place most amenable to some of the ideas proposed 
in this thread.


Peter

On 8/22/2012 4:51 PM, Peter Korn wrote:
> 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

-- 
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 23:58:41 GMT

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