Expanding the web's potential for people with disabilities

Getting Started

Introduction to web accessibility

WebAIM Training

May 21-22
Training Details

From the Blog

Community

You are here: Home > TEITAC Archives > Mailing List Archives

Thread Subject: Re: Web Content -- stand alone section?

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Peter Wallack
Date: Wed, Jun 20 2007 6:30 PM

Return to this mailing list's archives
View all messages in this thread
Next message in thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Web Content -- stand alone section?"
Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Web Content -- stand alone section?"
Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I'm
really having a hard time justifying any distinction between 'web' and
'software', and I'm afraid this proposal did not help me at all. It
seems to me that proposing mostly parallel sets of standards can only
inevitably lead to  divergence, as is so clearly obvious in the current
508 standards. Justifying the distinction based on some technicality
(HTTP) that means
absolutely nothing to most of our ultimate audience (disabled users,
*not* developers) doesn't help. And vendors are
aggressively doing everything possible to remove any distinction
between 'software' and 'web apps' (thats a major point of Web 2.0, is
it not?) so organizing standards which are based on this distinction
doesn't seem particularly beneficial to anyone either. Specific
comments follow Gregg's 'rationale' items: 
 
i.     
You can't apply Functional
Performance Criteria for some parts of Web content without first
including the web
content players (user agent) software. 
A similar argument can be made for software relying on the OS layer, so
this can be dealt with in one place by defining the responsibilities of
an OS and platform. 
 
ii.     
Web developers might be confused if
reading the whole list of provisions (hardware, software etc) since 
some sound like they apply but don't. 
I'm very confident developers can distinguish between 'software' and
'hardware'. Given the difficulties we have of defining 'web content' I
think creating this particular distinction is itself the source of the
confusion. And as far as I'm concerned, if someone applies a standard
that really wasn't meant for them, thats a good thing. 
  
iii.     
To facilitate harmonization.
 
Yes, this is absolutely worth doing. But I'd argue that if you take any
WCAG 2.0 guidelines and genericize just a very few words like 'user
agent', you'd have guidelines that apply to all software, since they
are all based on fundamental principles. 
 
iv.     
To allow tweaking if things must be
a little different for content 
The only reason I can think of that tweaking would be necessary is if
we propose specific coding solutions, which we appear to not be doing.
Anyway, should that be necessary on an exceptional basis, a simple Note
could handle it. 
 
v.     
There is so much in Web that it only
requires adding a few more to make it complete 
Thats not really a valid argument. 
 
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation</pre>
 
 
Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:014b01c7b383$e8a7d7b0$a117a8c0@NC84301"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State">
<style>

</style>
</o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType>
<div class="Section1">
Per request on call today
– here is a summary of where
the group ended up in its discussion today on this topic.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Proposed<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
1)      
That a
definition of Web Content be established so it is clear when something
is Web
content or not. <o:p></o:p>
a.      
A possible
definition
is posted separately<o:p></o:p>
2)      
That Web
Content section be developed as an independent list of provisions that
are self
contained.<o:p></o:p>
a.      
Rationale<o:p></o:p>
                                                              
i.     
You can't
apply Functional
Performance Criteria for some parts of Web content without first
including the web
content players (user agent) software. <o:p></o:p>
                                                            
ii.     
Web
developers might be confused if
reading the whole list of provisions (hardware, software etc) since
some sound
like they apply but don't. <o:p></o:p>
                                                           
iii.     
To
facilitate harmonization.<o:p></o:p>
                                                          
iv.     
To allow
tweaking if things must be
a little different for content<o:p></o:p>
                                                            
v.     
There is
so much in Web that it only
requires adding a few more to make it complete<o:p></o:p>
3)      
That AV be
included in the Web section as it applies to web content.  <o:p></o:p>
a.      
Rationale<o:p></o:p>
                                                              
i.     
AV is key
part of Web<o:p></o:p>
                                                            
ii.     
AV is
somewhat different on web than
off the web<o:p></o:p>
                                                           
iii.     
Harmonization<o:p></o:p>
b.     
If
language is
identical to non-web then either <o:p></o:p>
                                                              
i.     
Include in
Web anyway<o:p></o:p>
                                                            
ii.     
Include in
Web only by means of a
pointer to AV  IF CFR FORMATTING ALLOWS this type of cross reference<o:p></o:p>
4)      
That a
note
be included in Web Section that General Technical and Software
provisions may
apply if product is basically software delivered via the web.<o:p></o:p>
a.      
For
example
software that doesn’t run within the web browser<o:p></o:p>
                                                              
i.     
Downloaded
.exe file<o:p></o:p>
                                                            
ii.     
Software
that loads directly into
memory from the web and runs as an application<o:p></o:p>
                                                           
iii.     
Any other
software that loads into
computer and doesn’t run in HTTP or runs using non-http    <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
This is also posted on
the WIKI at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_Section_as_Stand_Alone_Section">http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_Section_as_Stand_Alone_Section</a>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
 
Gregg 
 
------------------------<o:p></o:p>
Gregg C
Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor
- Depts of <ns0:State w:insauthor="Gregg Vanderheiden"
w:insdate="2007-06-20T13:03:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Gregg Vanderheiden"
w:endinsdate="2007-06-20T13:03:00Z"><ns0:place
w:insauthor="Gregg Vanderheiden" w:insdate="2007-06-20T13:03:00Z"
w:endinsauthor="Gregg Vanderheiden" w:endinsdate="2007-06-20T13:03:00Z"><st1:State
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ind.</st1:place></st1:State></ns0:place></ns0:State>
Engr. & BioMed Engr. 
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University
of Wisconsin-Madison 
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://trace.wisc.edu/" target="_blank">http://trace.wisc.edu/</a>>
FAX
608/262-8848  <o:p></o:p>
DSS Player at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tinyurl.com/dho6b">http://tinyurl.com/dho6b</a>
<o:p></o:p>
If Attachement is a
mail.dat try <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/">http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/</a><o:p></o:p>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/"> <o:p></o:p></a>
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">

Next message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Web Content -- stand alone section?"
Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Web Content -- stand alone section?"

WebAIM is an initiative of: