W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Conformance Claims and Logo

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:08:26 -0800
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005701c2c943$02d21770$5f814094@rose>

One of the major news sources for web sites is Moreover.com.  On their
FAQ page they explain why they are better than free services.  To put it
in a nutshell they have their information in XML.  Through XML they the
have the hyperlink to they news source, but many times people put "click
here" type text for the links.

What I was referring to was using the XML source in a manner consistent
with accessibility since the designer has to create the XSLT file to
parse the XML.  That can then turn the inaccessible versions provided in
JavaScript or VBScript, and the "click here" versions into an accessible
version.  That would not be plagiarism nor violation of the Millennium
Copyright Act or any other act prohibiting repackaging of services or
products.

Typically, the link will take the visitor to a totally different site
which at that time is out of our control for accessibility.  However,
there are times when the services allow the information to be pulled
into a template for presenting the news or services while remaining on
the initial site.  That again is done typically via XML.

My home page is set to Netscape's news postings.  Typically when I check
a news article or current event I'm taken to a totally different site.
However, the information on the Netscape site is primarily inaccessible
due to their programming and not using ALT attributes or providing frame
titles.

If the full article is pulled in from the originating source into a
subdomain, then would that resolve the issue since we are now outside
the "accessible domain"?  For instance, I visited tomorrow.com and
received a news feed.  In this news feed was an article title that
interested me and I clicked on it.  Instead of being sent to the
originating service, I'm sent to a subdomain like feed.tomorrow.com.
That removes me from the originating site because subdomains are
considered separate domains in most regards.

Could we require that when news feeds are used on a site and the entire
article is available through the visited site that a subdomain be used
instead of the main domain of the visited site?

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 3:11 PM
To: 'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'; 'WCAG List'
Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo



Hi all

I knew that one would start a conversation.  Because I see big problems
both ways and no way to solve them.

If something is copyrighted and inaccessible, it is a felony (Federal
crime)
to create an accessible version in many cases.   Plagiarism and the
Millennium Copyright Act are two examples.  And there are more.    

Also,  if you click on a document it downloads to your computer and you
expect it to be accessible.  (even HTML).

But if you click on a program and download it you think of it as a
product, not content.

So what if you click on a book?
A film?
A DVD?
A PDF?
A Movie stream?
A Video stream?
A Stock Quote stream in a proprietary (non copyable and therefore
non-screen reader compatible form)?

When is it content and when is it product?
When is it even legal to repackage the content accessibly (that
therefore pirate-able)? 

However, we don't want to give blanket approval that content on a web
site can just be inaccessible if it came from somewhere else......  



 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:31 PM
To: WCAG List
Subject: Re: Conformance Claims and Logo



----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Historical and Third Party Copyrighted Materials


Materials which were not developed by or for the entity sponsoring the
site and whose development was not under the control of the entity
sponsoring the site are not required to meet these guidelines in order
for a site to meet the guidelines.  These items would be considered
commodities or products delivered by the site rather than being part of
the site.


Roberto:
Sorry... but, for example, if i insert inside a well-conformed web site
an application with code generated by a package (or, for example, a Java
application) that is copyrighted and not accessible, with this claim i
can define "accessible" my web site?

I think that we need that we need to define in some part of the
guidelines (a checkpoint?) that: "An equivalent version of the materials
which were not developed by or for the entity sponsoring the site and
whose development was not under the control of the entity sponsoring the
site must be available for use the logo for the level reached."
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 09:09:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT