Thread Subject: Re: Action Item #2 - Definition of Web Page
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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Aug 23 2007 1:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: Action Item #2 - Definition of Web Page"
- Previous message in thread: Li, Alex: "Action Item #2 - Definition of Web Page"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Both of the examples (.exe and email) would fail to be a Web Page under the
An email viewer that was a web page- would be a web page. But the email is
not.. Nor is the EXE or any other downloaded file because they are not
rendered (by a user agent) - they are run.
If the word 'rendered' is unclear by itself - perhaps we should add "by a
user agent" to the end of the definition. Does that help?
With regard to content from multiple places --- it is true that sometimes it
is hard to make sure that web pages are accessible or stay accessible. But
that should not change the definition of what is a Web page -- nor when it
is accessible. It would only highlight the problem that people with
disabilities may have in successfully accessing some pages. And 508
standards should correctly identify which pages would cause problems.
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Li, Alex
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:05 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Action Item #2 - Definition of Web Page
> Here's the problem with a defintion like that--almost
> anything is web content. When we cast such a wide net. The
> term just does not mean much anymore.
> Let's look at two scenarios to illustrate the point that
> thing not intended to be web content can end up becoming web content.
> Scenario 1-I think an exe file posted for download can be
> classified as web content as it stands. Obviously, it does
> not make common sense that an exe file posted would be
> considered as web conent. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> Another common scenario that may test our understanding is
> email. A simple text-based email application is generally
> not considered a web authoring tool. Nor is an email author
> normally considered a web content author. But the email
> author may become a web content author because the receiver
> of the email happens to use a web-based email as sited in
> example 3. Today, WCAG 2 carve that out as partial
> conformance because the web-mail application cannot control
> the incoming emails. I don't think we should do the same in
> 508. Below is the text used in WCAG 2 for partial conformance.
> Statement of partial conformance
> Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have
> additional content added to them. For example, an email
> program, a blog, an article that allows users to add comments
> to the bottom, or applications supporting user contributed
> content. Another example would be a page composed of content
> aggregated from multiple contributors, such as in portals and
> news sites. Sometimes, the content from the other sources is
> automatically inserted into the page over time.
> In both of these cases, it is not possible to know at the
> time of original posting what the content of the pages will
> be. Two options are
> 1. A conformance claim is made based on best knowledge. If
> a page of this type is monitored and kept conforming
> (non-conforming content is immediately removed or made
> conforming) then a conformance claim can be made since,
> except for error periods, the page conforms. No conformance
> claim should be made if it is not possible to monitor or
> correct non-conforming content; OR
> 2. A "statement of partial conformance" is made. A
> statement that the page does not conform, but could conform
> if certain parts were removed can be made. The form of that
> statement would be, "This page would conform to WCAG 2.0 at
> level X if the following parts from uncontrolled sources were
> a. The content that is excluded in the statement of
> partial conformance cannot be content that is under the
> author's control.
> b. The content that is excluded in the statement of
> partial conformance would be described in terms that users
> can understand. (e.g.
> they can't be described as "all parts that we do not have control of"
> unless they are clearly marked as such.)
- Next message in Thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: Action Item #2 - Definition of Web Page"
- Previous message in Thread: Li, Alex: "Action Item #2 - Definition of Web Page"