- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:47:08 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-id: <016101c2cca7$bb39d750$ac17a8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>
Hmmmm A few questions. 1. Would this be accessible if the person couldn't handle RDF or RSS? 2. Are we requiring that users have RDF or RSS savvy access? Even on public systems? 3. Is RDF / RSS savvy user agents our baseline for the guidelines? 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 Lisa Seeman Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:47 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo 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 <http://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 Tuesday, 4 February 2003 19:32:01 UTC