AW: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three options - proposal)

+1 for what Richards says :-)

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2012 11:53
> An: Vivienne CONWAY; Eval TF
> Betreff: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
> options - proposal)
> 
> Hi Vivienne and all.
> 
> When I use the "pass" term for things that do not exist I get queries
> from
> my clients who think that I have not done the job properly.
> 
> To save us all the hassle of explaining the complexity of W3C logic,  I
> therefore use N/A for SCs and Guideline 1.2.  on my score sheet.  At
> the top
> of my score sheet I explain the meanings of Pass, Fail and N/A
> including
> that we give a pass score value to N/A  because the designer has
> avoided
> using the relevant technologies that can cause particular problems.
> This
> means the in the executive summary I can count N/As as Pass and avoid
> the
> hassle. (eg. "The site passes all 12 guidelines")
> 
> Richard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vivienne CONWAY
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:09 AM
> To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Cc: Eval TF
> Subject: RE: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
> options -
> proposal)
> 
> HI Shadi & all
> 
> That's true, however where it comes unstuck is in the reporting.  CEO's
> like
> to see lovely graphs showing how many of the criteria have been met.
> If the
> data is recorded as 'passed' even though it doesn't exist (the audio
> file),
> then the graph and any stats look better than they are really are.  If
> it is
> n/a or something similar, they can't confuse this with something that
> actually meets a requirement.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT
> 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: Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:02 PM
> To: Vivienne CONWAY
> Cc: Eval TF
> Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
> options -
> proposal)
> 
> Hi Vivienne,
> 
> Isn't it the same if you called it "passed" or "not applicable" then
> the
> content is added? In both cases your report is already out of date and
> the content needs to be reassessed.
> 
> Note that even in this most basic report it is pretty clear when the
> content passed because there was no corresponding content:
>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/before/reports/home.html>
> 
> Best,
>    Shadi
> 
> 
> On 23.2.2012 09:47, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
> > HI Alistair
> > I agree with you on this one for sure.
> >
> > If I can't find an issue (say an audio file) that does not
> necessarily
> > mean that the website should pass on that criteria. It may be added
> later,
> > or I may just not have located it when looking for suitable pages to
> > assess.  I'm more comfortable with 'not applicable' or 'not tested'
> or
> > 'not located on reviewed pages' or something similar.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT
> > 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: Alistair Garrison [alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 5:43 PM
> > To: Eval TF
> > Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
> > options - proposal)
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I would feel a little uncomfortable declaring something to be passed
> -
> > simply because I could not find any applicable content.
> >
> > I know when showing conformity with ISO documentation "reference to
> the
> > appropriate Standard (title, number, and year of issue); when the
> > certification applies to only a Portion of a standard, the applicable
> > portion(s) should be clearly identified;" (ISO Guide 23).
> >
> > In our situation, this would mean that we simply list all things
> (most
> > probably Success Criteria) we have found to be applicable in the
> > Conformance Claim.  Then go on to state which of these things has
> been
> > passed or failed in the report.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Alistair
> >
> > On 22 Feb 2012, at 12:37, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote:
> >
> > My +1 too :-)
> >
> > I think that this is very important.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Emmanuelle
> >
> > 2012/2/22 Velleman,
> > Eric<evelleman@bartimeus.nl<mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl>>
> > Hi Vivienne,
> >
> > Think I put it on the agenda. So lets talk about it.
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Van: Vivienne CONWAY
> [v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>]
> > Verzonden: woensdag 22 februari 2012 3:13
> > Aan: Michael S Elledge; Shadi Abou-Zahra
> > CC: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org<mailto:public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
> > Onderwerp: RE: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
> > options  -  proposal)
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > I just ran across this discussion which is something that I think we
> > should put in the EVTF methodology.  I know that I've been using n/a
> when
> > it seemed the item was not present in the website e.g. videos.
> However if
> > this is the W3C consensus, I'll need to change my reporting.  Can we
> talk
> > about this in our teleconference this week?
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT<http://B.IT/>(Hons), MACS CT
> > 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: Michael S Elledge [elledge@msu.edu<mailto:elledge@msu.edu>]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 2:29 AM
> > To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
> > Cc: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org<mailto:public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
> > ptions  - proposal)
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation, Shadi. I imagine it took some discussion
> to
> > reach that consensus!  :^)
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On 2/20/2012 2:30 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> Good question. We had a long discussion about that and also asked
> the
> >> WCAG Working Group on their position on this.
> >>
> >> According to WCAG WG, the term "Not Applicable" is not defined and
> is
> >> ambiguous. Accessibility requirements are deemed met when the
> content
> >> does not require specific accessibility features. For example, the
> >> requirement for captioning is deemed met if there is no video
> content.
> >>
> >> I will try dig out the corresponding pointers but I recall that this
> >> was something that was less clearly documented in the WCAG
> documents.
> >> We will probably need to clarify this point somewhere in section 5
> of
> >> the Methodology, and possibly as WCAG WG to also clarify some of
> their
> >> materials (so that we can refer to it from our explanation).
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>    Shadi
> >>
> >>
> >> On 20.2.2012 19:26, Michael S Elledge wrote:
> >>> Hi Shadi--
> >>>
> >>> I noticed in the BAD example that success criteria for which there
> was
> >>> no related web content received a "Pass." I'm curious why that
> approach
> >>> was chosen rather than to identify such instances as "Not
> Applicable" or
> >>> "NA." Wouldn't using the term "NA" be both more informative and
> >>> accurate?
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> On 2/20/2012 10:43 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> >>>> Small addition:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20.2.2012 16:28, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Kerstin, All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not too sure what the difference between options #1 and #2
> >>>>> would be
> >>>>> in practice, as I hope that evaluators will simply link to
> Techniques
> >>>>> rather than to attempt to explain the issues themselves.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is an example of what a report of option #1 could look like:
> >>>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/before/reports/home.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a positive example too: ;)
> >>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/after/reports/home.html>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Shadi
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Note: this is a report for a single page but it could still be a
> basis
> >>>>> for reports of option #1 for entire websites; it just has a
> pass/fail
> >>>>> for each Success Criterion and some Techniques to justify these
> >>>>> claims.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For option #2 we could introduce a scoring function in addition
> to the
> >>>>> pass/fail result. This would require the evaluators to fully
> evaluate
> >>>>> every page in the selected sample and count the frequencies of
> >>>>> errors to
> >>>>> calculate a score. It could help compare websites and motivate
> the
> >>>>> developers (at least those who are close to full compliance).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally, option #3 would be more in-depth reports with examples
> of the
> >>>>> errors and explanations of ways to repair the errors. These are,
> as
> >>>>> Kerstin says, developed by consultants (as opposed to pure
> evaluators)
> >>>>> for developers who are new to accessibility.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We attempted to provide such an example report in the initial
> >>>>> version of
> >>>>> the Before and After Demo (BAD) but it is really lots of work:
> >>>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/report/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Shadi
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 19.2.2012 20:36, Elle wrote:
> >>>>>> Kerstin:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I like these three options. I am interested, however, in how
> many
> >>>>>> clients
> >>>>>> that typically ask for something as abbreviated as Option 1. For
> >>>>>> those in
> >>>>>> this group, do you experience situations with a lot of clients
> who
> >>>>>> don't
> >>>>>> want more than the pass/fail report?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Elle
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Kerstin Probiesch<
> >>>>>> k.probiesch@googlemail.com<mailto:k.probiesch@googlemail.com>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> in our last teleconference we discussed a evaluation scheme
> with
> >>>>>>> three
> >>>>>>> options based upon 100% Conformance. I appreciate these
> proposals
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>> them as chance to integrate or point to the three documents of
> >>>>>>> WCAG2:
> >>>>>>> Guidelines and SCs, Understanding and How to meet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One proposal for handling the documents in an evaluation
> scheme,
> >>>>>>> based upon
> >>>>>>> the normative guidelines and SCs as core:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =====
> >>>>>>> Option 1: WCAG 2.0 – Core Test ("light version" or whatever the
> >>>>>>> wording
> >>>>>>> later will be)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> # Guideline X (Heading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) - – if
> regional: a
> >>>>>>> list of
> >>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) - – if
> regional: a
> >>>>>>> list of
> >>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (...)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =====
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Use cases for Option1:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - experienced developers and clients who know WCAG2 and need
> just
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> results,
> >>>>>>> - comparative evaluations (20 hotel websites, city websites…)
> >>>>>>> - or for example just with the SCs of level a and a smaller
> scope as
> >>>>>>> pre-test to decide together with the client what the best next
> steps
> >>>>>>> might
> >>>>>>> be (evaluation, consulting, probably workshops for editors)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =====
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Option 2: WCAG 2.0 – Core incl. understanding (name?)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> # Guideline X (Heading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional:
> a
> >>>>>>> list of
> >>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Problem (Subheading): Description of existing problems and
> barriers
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> users (here know how out of the understanding document could be
> part
> >>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>> description).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional:
> a
> >>>>>>> list of
> >>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Problem (Subheading): Description of existing problems and
> barriers
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> users (here know how out of the understanding document could be
> part
> >>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>> description).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (...)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ======
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Use cases:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - comparative evaluations (depending on the specific time and
> costs)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - if a client just want descriptions
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - regular tests like "evaluation of the week"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =====
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Option 3: WCAG 2.0 – Core, understanding, how to meet (name?)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> # Guideline X (Heading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional:
> a
> >>>>>>> list of
> >>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Problem (Subheading): description/explanation of existing
> >>>>>>> problems and
> >>>>>>> barriers for users (here know how out of the Understanding
> Document
> >>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> part of the description).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Action (Subheading): Description of techniques for meeting the
> SC
> >>>>>>> (could be
> >>>>>>> techniques which are already in the techniques document or new
> >>>>>>> techniques
> >>>>>>> which are not in the document, but with which the SC can be
> met).
> >>>>>>> Here even
> >>>>>>> usability aspects can play a role, like: you can do a, b, c or
> d –
> >>>>>>> I/we
> >>>>>>> propose/recommend c.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional:
> a
> >>>>>>> list of
> >>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Problem (Subheading): description/explanation of existing
> >>>>>>> problems and
> >>>>>>> barriers for users (here know how out of the Understanding
> Document
> >>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> part of the description).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Action (Subheading): Description of techniques for meeting the
> SC
> >>>>>>> (could be
> >>>>>>> techniques which are already in the techniques document or new
> >>>>>>> techniques
> >>>>>>> which are not in the document, but with which the SC can be
> met).
> >>>>>>> Here even
> >>>>>>> usability aspects can play a role, like: you can do a, b, c or
> d –
> >>>>>>> I/we
> >>>>>>> propose/recommend c.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (...)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ======
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Use cases:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - test incl. consulting
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - for clients who are not very familiar with accessibility and
> WCAG2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ============
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For a seal/badge or any formal confirmation Option 1 is the
> minimum.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A report might also / should? also have intro parts like:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Short description of the Option 1, 2 or 3
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Something like a disclaimer ("results might not be complete,
> >>>>>>> therefore it
> >>>>>>> is important to go through the page, view all similar elements
> and
> >>>>>>> solve
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> corresponding problems)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Glossary (for specific terms we used in our methodology -like
> >>>>>>> regional/global – if we decide to use them)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Documentation of the used OS, Browsers and Versions, probably
> used
> >>>>>>> assistive technologies incl. versions
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Tested Conformance Level (A, AA, AA)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Results
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Summary, probably written as an overall impression - we
> discussed
> >>>>>>> in this
> >>>>>>> list the 'motivation factor'. I think the aim of an evaluation
> is
> >>>>>>> not to
> >>>>>>> motivate. Nevertheless, writing a nice overall impression in a
> >>>>>>> report, may
> >>>>>>> have this function. Ok, except when there is nothing nice to
> say.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This scheme could probably also be used for processes, pdf,
> flash
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> so on
> >>>>>>> and I think it would be flexible enough (time, costs, ...) and
> in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>> time valid against the Conformance Requirements, because the
> core
> >>>>>>> (evaluation itself) is the same in every option.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Important, as I see it, is that the evaluator has the three
> >>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>> aspects in mind and in the report, which I believe shouldn't be
> >>>>>>> mixed:
> >>>>>>> evaluation (Core, testing SCs), explanation (description of the
> >>>>>>> problem/violation, understanding) and consulting (how to meet,
> >>>>>>> usability,..)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The evaluator could document the "progress toward meeting
> success
> >>>>>>> criteria
> >>>>>>> from all levels beyond the achieved level of conformance": If
> for
> >>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>> the evaluation is for Level A with Option 3 the SCs of AA could
> >>>>>>> also be
> >>>>>>> checked (pass/fail) without any further description or with
> further
> >>>>>>> description, depending on the contract.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Advantage: every evaluator or testing organization uses the
> >>>>>>> methodology and
> >>>>>>> a standardized 'template' for the core and the evaluation
> itself.
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>> descriptions of existing barriers (explanatory
> part/understanding in
> >>>>>>> Option
> >>>>>>> 2 and 3) and the consulting part (How to meet, in Option 3)
> would
> >>>>>>> be the
> >>>>>>> specific added value for the clients/the evaluator/the testing
> >>>>>>> organization.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --Kerstin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
> >>>>>>> Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
> >>>>>>> Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
> >>>>>>> Tel.: 06421 167002
> >>>>>>> E-Mail:
> >>>>>>> mail@barrierefreie-
> informationskultur.de<mailto:mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de>
> >>>>>>> Web:
> >>>>>>> http://www.barrierefreie-
> informationskultur.de<http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch
> >>>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch
> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
> > Fundación y Seminario SIDAR
> > URL: www.sidar.org<http://www.sidar.org/>
> > email: emmanuelle@sidar.org<mailto:emmanuelle@sidar.org>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > 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 February 2012 11:02:06 UTC