- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:58:01 -0700
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <50357209.5080908@oracle.com>
Shadi, Following up on this thought, I can imagine an "Summary Conformance Statement" and a "Detailed Conformance Statement". The later would would essentially be a repackaging for the Step 5.a documentation of results, while the former would be some high level summary. I think the summary would be the place most amenable to some of the ideas proposed in this thread. Peter On 8/22/2012 4:51 PM, Peter Korn wrote: > Shadi, > > I think part of my problem is the term "Accessibility Statement", > which is something that quite a few sites already have. > > I think it might help us if we renamed what we are talking about to be > "Conformance Statement", and expressly define it as a public statement > around the use of this methodology. THEN I think we can explore what > things must be (and not be) in such a statement, etc. > > Make sense? > > > Peter > > On 8/22/2012 4:24 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> On 22.8.2012 23:01, Peter Korn wrote: >>> Shadi, >>> >>> I think it does make sense for us to discuss ways to report how well >>> a web site >>> addresses the various WCAG 2.0 A/AA/AAA SCs in something other than >>> a 100% >>> perfect Conformance Claim. But at some level, aren't we already >>> doing that in >>> the Appendix C Reporting Templates? >> >> We primarily address this in the required Step 5.a on documenting the >> results and in the optional Step 5.c on providing performance scores. >> Appendix C provides examples to support Step 5.a. >> >> >>> Are you looking for some sort of short public summary of the >>> Reporting Template >>> result? Because that isn't at all what I'm seeing proposed for >>> 3.5.2 Step 5.b. >>> And we have also been discussing in a separate thread the idea of a >>> "score" >>> (which would be another way of summarizing the Report results). >> >> The optional Step 5.b addresses the situation when someone decides to >> public an accessibility statement to declare that the website >> conforms with WCAG 2.0 according to this particular methodology. >> >> >>> I very much support what you are suggesting in your last paragraph >>> below - and >>> welcome suggests for text for that (which should have nothing to do >>> with >>> promises about when something might get fixed or responded to, and >>> frankly I >>> think should also not get into any "commits to ensuring the accuracy >>> and >>> validity"). It should be, as you wrote, related to the differences >>> between WCAG >>> 2.0 Conformance Claims and what is/can be said about an entire site >>> after >>> following this methodology. >> >> I think this is the discussion that is needed. >> >> However, don't we need to avoid misrepresentation of this methodology >> when people make inaccurate statements? Inaccurate statements, for >> example because they are outdated, could undermine the credibility of >> the entire methodology. >> >> Best, >> Shadi >> >> >>> Peter >>> >>> On 8/22/2012 1:33 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: >>>> 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) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 <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 <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 23:58:41 UTC