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

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@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<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><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><http://www.oracle.com/commitment><http://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/commitment><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/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
>>
>

-- 
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