W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Proposed response to the WAIC public comment

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:54:16 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinMtGGvSNWMXaJaXBjYaZSmB-RkCT2UCSEwqrMy@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sailesh, I'm having trouble distinguishing your comments from the text
you are commenting on. I hope these clarifications address your poins.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Loretta,
> Refer to:
> Your example describes the YouTube player as not under the author's
> control; it may be updated without notice. The independent update of
> the player does sound similar to the examples above, so it could be
> considered third party content.
> Comment: The above likens the player to content like email, blog entry etc. I do not think that is the intent of the WCAG2 doc when it says:
> "Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have additional
> content added to them. For example, an email program, a blog, an
> article that allows users to add comments, or applications supporting
> user-contributed content. ..."

Why do you think this is not the intent of the WCAG2 document? The
critical characteristic is content that will be changed later by
someone other than the author, without going through the author. It is
the auto-updating character of the video player that makes its third
party content.


>
> The player is a widget or a user agent that renders audio-video content and the author should take care to select one that is accessible as the audio-video content depends on it. The 'accessibility supported' clause comes into play here.
> One alternative is to allow the user to download the content and play it in a player of his choice.
>
> Alternative scenario: Suppose there is a Word or Excel doc and for argument sake, the only way to render it is via the Word /Excel Viewer launched from the browser. This is not accessible for some AT users.

> So this is not AT supported and will fail in my opinion.
> But in reality if one can download the doc and open it locally using Word / Excel, then there is no such problem.

I'm not following your scenario. If the document cannot be served from
a URI, but must be downloaded and rendered via a desktop application,
it is not web content and WCAG does not apply. A similar case would be
downloading an application from the web. WCAG says nothing about the
accessibility of the application.

If the document can be served to a user agent from a URI, it is web
content, and can be evaluated against WCAG.

However, in both these scenarios, the viewer does not appear to be web content.

> Sailesh Panchang
> Accessibility Services Lead
> www.deque.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 21:54:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 October 2010 21:54:54 GMT