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

From: David Poehlman
Date: Thu, Jun 21 2007 6:30 AM

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

I'm not confident that the differences are determinable, but I am confident
that with clear guidance, this could work. I agree with ou though that in
general, separation for web is a backward step and would be harmful in the
long run.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Wallack" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Web Content -- stand alone section?


<!--[endif]-->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.

<!--[endif]-->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.

<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->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.

<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->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.

<!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->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.


Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
Per request on call today - here is a summary of where the group ended up
in its discussion today on this topic.



Proposed



<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->That a definition of Web
Content be established so it is clear when something is Web content or not.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->A possible definition is
posted separately

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->That Web Content section
be developed as an independent list of provisions that are self contained.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->Rationale

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
i. <!--[endif]-->You can't apply Functional Performance Criteria for
some parts of Web content without first including the web content players
(user agent) software.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
ii. <!--[endif]-->Web developers might be confused if reading the whole
list of provisions (hardware, software etc) since some sound like they apply
but don't.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
iii. <!--[endif]-->To facilitate harmonization.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
iv. <!--[endif]-->To allow tweaking if things must be a little
different for content

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
v. <!--[endif]-->There is so much in Web that it only requires adding a
few more to make it complete

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3) <!--[endif]-->That AV be included in the
Web section as it applies to web content.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->Rationale

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
i. <!--[endif]-->AV is key part of Web

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
ii. <!--[endif]-->AV is somewhat different on web than off the web

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
iii. <!--[endif]-->Harmonization

<!--[if !supportLists]-->b. <!--[endif]-->If language is identical to
non-web then either

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
i. <!--[endif]-->Include in Web anyway

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
ii. <!--[endif]-->Include in Web only by means of a pointer to AV IF
CFR FORMATTING ALLOWS this type of cross reference

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4) <!--[endif]-->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.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->For example software that
doesn't run within the web browser

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
i. <!--[endif]-->Downloaded .exe file

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
ii. <!--[endif]-->Software that loads directly into memory from the web
and runs as an application

<!--[if !supportLists]-->
iii. <!--[endif]-->Any other software that loads into computer and
doesn't run in HTTP or runs using non-http



This is also posted on the WIKI at
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_Section_as_Stand_Alone_Section






Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/







------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Next message in Thread: Peter Wallack: "Re: Web Content -- stand alone section?"
• Previous message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Web Content -- stand alone section?"