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: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Jun 26 2007 6:25 PM

There may be historical and language-usage problems with this, but maybe
we should stop calling things "web content"/"web accessibility", and
instead focus on what the things is (instead of where it comes from).

Thus we have content accessibility guidelines, including specific HTML
content accessibility guidelines. These apply to HTML content whether
they are viewed via an HTTP GET request from a website, or a File->Open
command within a web browser from a local/networked disk, or within a
Help browser, or from a word processor.

Likewise, we have application accessibility guidelines, perhaps
including specifically guidelines for applications that are a blend of
HTML/SVG/whatever and running code (be that code Flash or Java or
ActiveX or whatever).


There are significant challenges with this view of things, most
especially including harmonization challenges and the existing &
historical view/language around "Web accessibility". But increasingly,
making distinctions about where a thing comes from is making less and
less sense.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> I agree with Andrew and Barbara that there should be no distinction
> between web and software. Since the gap between web and software is
> narrowing, and this trend will continue in the future, it is a more
> forward-looking approach that will be less likely to become obsolete as
> time passes.
>
> I am also thinking of those who administrate 508 in industry, developers
> who want to create accessible applications that conform to the
> standards, and those who complete VPATS. The simpler and more reasonable
> approach is to combine software and web.
>
> Chris Meier
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
>
> Would it make sense to put web before software with the generally "only
> simple web" items first, then the complicated ones to simplify
> application?
>
> We have done exactly what Don is indicating here by inserting reference
> points for conditional items and functions, it is *NOT* straightforward,
> but might be if the divisions were straightforward and easy to follow.
> For example, first ten provisions in the section for web-and-software
> are for conditions normally viewed as simple web, and then the other
> provisions are for all the situations where more complicated interactive
> user inputs occur. This would work for me.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Barrett, Don
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
>
> "Put a note in Web guidelines that refers to software guidelines for
> software embedded in web - or for software downloaded from web."
>
> I like this approach because it keeps things simple when they are
> simple, and when more complex software-based content is introduced,
> expands to handle it. In the current standards, 22[m] does much the
> same thing; the problem with the current standard isn't that we are
> doing this; it's more that the current standard doesn't fully define
> when the software standards come into play. The concept though is
> sound.
>
> Don
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:24 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
>
> I think Web content is content the comes from the Web and is rendered in
> a Web browser (user agent).
>
>
>
> The Web has a definition and I think we should work off of that.
>
>
>
>
>
> The problem - I think - is twofold
>
>
>
> 1) That many people who create web content are not programmers and
> could not understand software guidelines
>
> 2) That Web content is increasingly looking like or incorporating
> software.
>
>
>
> We can argue Separate or Combined and probably all agree on all the
> details and still come down all over the map.
>
>
>
>
>
> I wonder if the approach might be to
>
>
>
> 1) Keep the Web guidelines separate so that simple content
> developers can have a set of guidelines they understand.
>
> 2) Put a note in Web guidelines that refers to software guidelines
> for software embedded in web - or for software downloaded from web.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

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