W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > February 2012

Re: proposed definition for "website"

From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 20:18:21 -0000
Message-ID: <4C238D9B1D2045C0ADC213C28B6E4B8E@DaddyPC>
To: "Don Raikes" <DON.RAIKES@ORACLE.COM>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Cc: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Dear All,

I hate to spoil an interesting discussion - but I thought the purpose of the 
Scope statement was to define exactly what was being evaluated. If the 
evaluation is a website then the main part of Shadi's definition is 
perfectly adequate (if combined with URL and date). If the task is to 
evaluate an application then the scope statement needs to define the 
application (describe its name, purpose, authorship, version number etc.), 
If the evaluation is a single page the scope statement would describe the 
page (purpose, current URL, publication date, author, even perhaps a screen 
shot etc.). The key thing is that the Scope statement needs to be clear and 
unambiguous so that the evaluation can be replicated in future, and if 
necessary used as reliable evidence in any dispute.

Regards

Richard

-----Original Message----- 
From: Votis Konstantinos
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:59 PM
To: Don Raikes
Cc: Shadi Abou-Zahra ; Eval TF
Subject: Re: proposed definition for "website"

Dear all I agree with comment of Don.There are many possibilities where a 
website is more than the followed defined key resources.What about portals, 
portlets,Web 3.0 applications,chat rooms,....Also we could say that a web 
site is a related collection of World Wide Web files.
Regards
Kostas



3 Feb 2012, 18:40, ο/η Don Raikes <DON.RAIKES@ORACLE.COM> έγραψε:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Maybe I have missed a  discussion of this topic since I just joined the 
> group, but what about a portal-style site?
>
> What if one or more portlets on the site are accessible, but the container 
> portal page has some accessibility issues how do we handle this?  Also 
> what about the fact that some portlets are accessible and others are not? 
> Do we consider each portlet a website since it is a self-contained web 
> application?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:38 AM
> To: Eval TF
> Subject: proposed definition for "website"
>
> Dear Eval TF,
>
> Yesterday I took an action to propose a new definition for "website" *in 
> the context of this document*. Currently the document says:
>
> [[ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/#website
> Website - A coherent collection of one or more related web pages that 
> together provide common use or functionality. It includes static web 
> pages, dynamically generated web pages, and web applications.
> ]]
>
>
> I propose we add the following text to this definition:
>
> [[
> Websites are generally self-enclosed entities with key resources such as a 
> homepage, login page, or other entry pages; help pages; sitemap; and 
> contact information. Web pages within a website typically have a common 
> design ("look and feel") and navigational structures. Examples of websites 
> in the context of this document include:
>  - Self-enclosed web appearances owned or provided by organizations;
>  - Self-enclosed sections of websites (sometimes referred to as 
> "sub-sites"), such as these of departments within organizations;
>  - Self-enclosed web applications and other web-based products.
>
> Arbitrary selections of individual web pages, especially those that do not 
> include complete processes, are not regarded as websites.
>
> Note: Selections of individual web pages that are not regarded as websites 
> may claim conformance to WCAG, but the evaluation of such collections is 
> outside the scope of this methodology.
> ]]
>
>
> Looking forward to your reactions!
>
> Best,
>   Shadi
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI 
> International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group 
> (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
> 
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 20:18:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT