Wikidata:Property proposal/accessibility statement URL

accessibility statement URL

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Done: accessibility statement URL (P9494) (Talk and documentation)

Represents	accessibility statement (Q106540977)
Data type	URL
Domain	item, website (Q35127) and subclasses, mobile app (Q620615)
Example 1	Trinity College Dublin website (Q65926476) → https://www.tcd.ie/accessibility/
Example 2	Publications Office of the European Union (Q480222) → https://op.europa.eu/en/web/about-us/legal-notices/accessibility-statement
Example 3	broadband.gov (Q4972015) → https://www.fcc.gov/accessibility/program
Example 4	Légifrance (Q653899) → https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/contenu/pied-de-page/accessibilite-partiellement-conforme
Planned use	Add the ones I can find

Motivation

Accessibility statements are common on public organizations websites (in EU they are mandatory for all of them due to Web Accessibility Directive (Q96414359), and some other websites and apps are also using them. Ths should in my opinion be added as a qualifier on complies with (P5009) that specifies which standard is being used. After the discussion below, I have changed this to be a main statement and putting the standard and language as qualifiers instead. Example for Trinity College Dublin website (Q65926476):

accessibility statement URL	https://www.tcd.ie/accessibility/ edit complies with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines language of work or name English 0 references add reference
		add value

Ainali (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Question do you consider this original research as well? --- Jura 19:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  As long as the accessibility statement says the site is compliant with a standard (as in several of the examples) I wouldn’t consider it original research. Belteshassar (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As well as what? Ainali (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Is the qualifier construction really needed? I imagine there’s only ever gonna be one accessibility statement per website, at least per language, so I can’t see that the complexity of using qualifiers adds much benefit. Also, having this as the main statement would allow adding multiple urls qualified with language of work or name (P407). Finally, it eliminates the potential issue of an accessibility statement that does not cite any specified standard. Belteshassar (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  That was my initial thought as well, but that makes it impossible to query what standard it is a statement for. Unless you add that as qualifier, which was my second thought. Your last argument I see as a feature that it is not possible, not a bug, as it will not taint the data with whatever someone calls being an accessibility statement but could contain essentially anything. Ainali (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough if we envision websites will be compliant with many other types of standards as well. Still, we need a way to allow multiple urls and indicate the language. This is a problem in one of your examples even. The EU Publication Office has the statement available in 24 languages and you just arbitrarily selected the English version. Belteshassar (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Some really are complying with other standards (like HTML5). But you second point is a good one. Even though multiple URLs are easy, qualifying language is not. And even though it may not be a 'must' it would certainly be best practice. I'll update the proposal above. Ainali (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Like it! Belteshassar (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Support I think this property can be either used as a qualifier or as a property. John Samuel (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Belteshassar (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--So9q (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ainali, Jsamwrites, Belteshassar, So9q::  Done accessibility statement URL (P9494) Mbch331 (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)