Thread Subject: Re: Definition of Web Content

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: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jun 26 2007 8:20 AM

There is or soon will be no such thing as web content.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content


I am not convinced this is perfect, just closer than anything else I
have seen so far. HTML interpreting/rendering is the most common factor
for the "web" at this point in my view. The seamlessness is also
critical--if a user or even tester can not tell where the seams are from
using the interface, it has to all be one or the other. Again, I think
I'm in agreement with you that we should merge these two sections and
rationalize them.






Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:09 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content

So the key to being web content is being rendered by or communicating
with a tool that also renders HTML? The Flash player renders some HTML,
so I guess that makes all Flash content web content... :)

AWK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:00 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
>
> I concur.
> Previously I was just attempting to at a minimum nail down to as much
> precision as possible, what we generally do mean by "web" content.
>
> Maybe web content is:
>
> Content interpreted by a user-agent which also interprets HTML,
> including content interpreted and presented to the user by plug-ins
> seamlessly.
>
> Conversely:
>
> Non-web content is:
>
> Content that is interpreted and presented to the user by applications
> which do not also interpret HTML, excluding plug-ins which do
> interpret HTML and present it seamlessly.
>
>
> I'd like to propose these two as items for consideration to help get
> our lines right if web/software are to be kept separated, but would
> agree with Andrew that I'm not convinced it makes technical or
> applicability sense to do so.
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:51 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
>
> No, I don't. There will always be hairs to split, particularly
> between these two sections. I don't think that keeping them apart
> makes sense.
>
> AWK
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Hoffman, Allen
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:43 AM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
> >
> > I was not aware of that difference, but I suppose either we
> can figure
>
> > out a way to work through that oddity, or just say, yeah,
> that's how
> > it is do to architecture. Do you have a suggestion of how
> to better
> > address these two architectures?
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:34 AM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
> >
> > You said that pdf wasn't because it was shown in a plugin.
> > The same is true of svg in ie, but not in firefox.
> > Awk
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> >
> > Corporate Accessibility Engineering Lead
> >
> > Adobe Systems
> >
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> > 617.219.2209
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 05:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
> >
> > I think you and i are wrestling with the same questions and
> problems
> > Andrew.
> >
> > I'm not sure why something "SVG" presented in IE would be different
> > than in FireFox, from my earlier definition perspective, since both
> > also interpret HTML. I too am trying to convince myself of the
> > rationale for not merging web/software. I view "web" as
> requirements
> > for coding primarily HTML items, which is a subset of other
> software
> > and content coding systems. This is why I keep raising my question
> > like "why is this restricted to "web"? Web and software
> are merging
> > so quickly now that if we are to have a line, rather than simply
> > clearly defined requirements and applicability, then we need to
> > clearly draw the line so people can figure it out.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> >
> >
> >

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University