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

Hi Michael,

Reading Richard's comment - and the WCAG WG feedback summary e-mail - 
prompted me to review again the EvalTF Work Statement 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws>.

What in our statement of work suggests that it is within our scope to 
define how a site that evaluates using our methodology shall respond to 
e-mail from folks unrelated to the evaluation?  Likewise what in our 
work statement suggests that it is within our scope to define how a site 
that evaluates using our methodology shall provide estimates about 
ANYTHING for doing work suggested by folks unrelated to the evaluation?

I can perhaps see how it might be in scope for someone using our 
methodology to be asked to behave in certain ways with evaluators they 
have expressly sought to evaluate their site using our methodology.  But 
none of the rest of what you are suggesting seems germane to the task 
we've been assigned in this task force.


Regards,

Peter

On 8/16/2012 4:45 PM, Michael S Elledge wrote:
> What if we suggest that organizations using compliance statements post 
> issues brought to their attention with a best faith estimate of when 
> they'd be addressed?
>
> Mike
>
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "RichardWarren" 
> <richard.warren@userite.com <mailto:richard.warren@userite.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Shadi,
>> I agree whole heartedly with Peter’s comments re any statement that 
>> stipulates how and when corrections should be made. It is not part of 
>> the evaluation process to specify specific corrective actions, and 
>> certainly not to specify required time-scales (what sanctions would 
>> you apply if the timescale is not met?).
>> I therefore concur with Peter that the draft should not be published 
>> with any statement requiring website owners to take specific actions 
>> or work within specific timescales
>> Richard
>> *From:* Peter Korn <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:41 PM
>> *To:* Shadi Abou-Zahra <mailto:shadi@w3.org>
>> *Cc:* Eval TF <mailto:public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>> *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>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>> - #6 <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>
>>>>> - #17 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c17>
>>>>> - #32 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c32>
>>>>> - #34 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c34>
>>>>> - #35 <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>
>>>> 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_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> <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