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

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

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:40:13 +0200
To: "'RichardWarren'" <richard.warren@userite.com>, "'Shadi Abou-Zahra'" <shadi@w3.org>, "'Peter Korn'" <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Cc: "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <50353593.c909cc0a.2b85.2043@mx.google.com>
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)
> 
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 08:37:34 GMT

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