- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:36 -0700
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <50350698.8080603@oracle.com>
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
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:20:20 UTC