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: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:36:06 +0200
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <001701c2cd34$b2f85d90$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>
No one has to understand  RDF

in fact, with the approach we are working on  even the user agents will not
have to understand RDF. This is a server side solution. The RDF allows a
service or server to render an alternive accessible rendering of each site.
you can think of it as an accessible mirror site, (although this is a
simplification)

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: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:47 AM
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo


  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
  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 Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:37:09 GMT

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