- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:24:09 +0200
- To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
- CC: 'Richard Warren' <richard.warren@userite.com>, 'Eval TF' <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Kerstin, On 22.8.2012 23:02, Kerstin Probiesch wrote: > Hi Shadi, all, > > If this section is needed (I'm not convinced), then it shouldn't be just > optional, or? Please provide argumentation for why you are not convinced and why it should not be optional. I don't think we can require someone to publish an accessibility statement but we can define requirements for when someone publishes an accessibility statement according to WCAG-EM. > Another issue for me is: I'm worrying a bit about all these optional > sections. If one evaluator uses the methodology without the optional > sections and another one with them it looks like two different methodologies > or that the other one is doing better work. But this is another problem... Yes, it is another problem. Please start a new thread if you identify concrete issues that would impact the *evaluation outcome*. However, please note that we need to address evaluations in different types of contexts and situations. Thanks, Shadi > Best > > Kerstin > > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. August 2012 22:33 >> An: Kerstin Probiesch; Richard Warren >> Cc: Eval TF >> Betreff: Re: AW: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval >> TF review) >> >> 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) >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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) > > -- 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 Wednesday, 22 August 2012 23:24:37 UTC