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

Re: proposed definition for "website"

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:26:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4F2E4B5E.2080800@w3.org>
To: Richard Warren <richard.warren@userite.com>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Richard,

I fully agree that the scope statement needs to define exactly what is 
being evaluated. The scope statement is an important part of assigning 
the evaluator and for reporting the findings afterwards.

Section #3. of the document [1] describes how to determine and express 
the scope. Maybe the suggested text [2] should be part of this section 
rather than part of the definition for website?

[1] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/#procedurescope>
[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Feb/0017>


On 4.2.2012 21:18, RichardWarren wrote:
> 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)

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 Sunday, 5 February 2012 09:27:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:20 UTC