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

RE: Conformance Claims and Logo

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:19:37 -0600
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <002801c2cb00$caf09c40$046fa8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>
Roberto wrote:

So i suggest to change the original proposal of Greeg for the claim [1]:

with this sentence:

 


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 required to produce standard output using technologies like RDF or
RSS to let the site meet these guidelines rather than being part of the
site.

 

I'm not sure I understand.

 

How does  RDF or RSS allow you to post inaccessible docs on your site for
download (so you can sell them for example) and still meet the guidelines?

 

 

Gregg

 

PS  I am assuredly not wedded to my text - which I see lots of problems
with. So I am not arguing to go back to it.  

 

 

 -- ------------------------------ 

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.

Director - Trace R & D Center 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG [mailto:rscano@iwa-italy.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 8:25 AM
To: Lee Roberts; gv@trace.wisc.edu; 'WCAG List'
Subject: Re: Conformance Claims and Logo

 

I agree in all...

We can ask to use RDF of RSS (available at http://purl.org/rss/1.0/, that is

used also by W3C for news feed.)

 

We do the same with some of our web sites at least for news "headers" or for

all the articles and contents.

 

So i suggest to change the original proposal of Greeg for the claim [1]:

 

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.

 

 

 

with this sentence:

 

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 required to produce standard output using tecnologies like RDF or

RSS to let the site meet these guidelines rather than being part of the

site.

 

 

 

 

Roberto:

----

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JanMar/0150.html

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>

To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>; "'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>;

"'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 5:08 PM

Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo

 

 

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 Sunday, 2 February 2003 16:19:43 GMT

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