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

Hi all

I wouldn't object to strengthening that a little bit:

The website owner commits to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the accessibility centre and also to addressing user concerns within a reasonable time frame.

or "will reply to the user within 10 working days" or similar.

Not that all problems will be fixed, but that the user can be assured that they will be contacted within a reasonable period of time regarding a possible resolution.


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
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: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2012 8:18 PM
To: Eval TF
Subject: Re: Accessibility Statements (was Re: Comments from Eval TF review)

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
>

--
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)

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

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 03:13:53 UTC