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

RE: Conformance Claims and Logo

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:46:42 +0200
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <001501c2cb71$8d4de2f0$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>
Let me try to explain this one.

We have three components
1 ) the site - which by itself is inaccessible
2) an RDF file full of information about  accessibility resources about
resources.- that was gobbled gook (sorry Avi) lets try again
  the RDF file may say:
This resources (like a image file) has this alternive text (a url of
alternive text or the alternive itself) that is useful for this user profile
(impaired vision) or to comply with this checkpoint (WCAG02 1.1)
This recourse (like a complex text snippet) has this alternive text (a URI
of alternive text or the alternive itself) that is useful for this user
profile (in need of literal and clear text)or to comply with this checkpoint
(WCAG02 4.1)

3) a portal:
takes the rdf, and the resources, combines them to make a rendering that is
just right for the user.

All  together you have an accessibility server side solution.

Note: the RDF and the portal do not need to made by the author.
Note: you can add RDF to a schema solving a lot of the problems defined in
XAG for all documents baised on that schema
Note: UB Access is making a (free) portal that does this, (I hope it will be
working in time for WCAG02),  so anyone can make any site accessible without
the authors cooperation - so long as the  site is valid enough to not kill
Html Tidy or other XML conversion tool

I had offered to edit an RDF techniques document (with sample ontology). Did
we have a clear design on that? I think the ontology should be reviewed by
this group  and in the open non proprietary space, or it will not be very
useful.
All the best,
Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web


lisa@ubaccess.com
www.ubaccess.com
Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
  Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:20 PM
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo


  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 Monday, 3 February 2003 05:47:25 GMT

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