RE: Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG?

David wrote:

 

> WCAG only scopes content at URI's using HTTP to deliver.

 

Katie: (For historical clarity…..) This is *exactly* what was decided by the WG as the intended scope of WCAG 2.0. And, it was discussed ad nausea, as is the wording in each of these proposed SC today. The decision was not made lightly.

 

I am *not* sure that this means that we cannot and should not change it for 2.1. I am saying it is what made the most sense at that time in technology.

 

And for similar reasons we had to scope it to web content/web pages – though we really didn’t feel that was optimal, as we were looking at mobile even then.

 

​​​​​* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque Systems.

 

From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:57 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>; w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG?

 

David wrote:

 

> WCAG only scopes content at URI's using HTTP to deliver.

 

David, can you post the source of that definitive statement? Thanks in advance.

 

 

Mark wrote:

 

> I’ve argued that if it is built, authored, or generated with web technologies, it doesn’t matter if the HTML rendered by the user agent is local, remote via HTTP, or generated on the fly… WCAG applies.

 

​That's my general position as well.​ Using the delivery protocol as a delineating factor seems to me to be something of a red herring. 

 

Prior to work happening on HTTP/2, Google and friends were also working on a delivery protocol called SPDY <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY>  (pronounced "Speedy") that rendered web content faster in the browsers, and had support in both Chrome and Firefox. Using David's assertion, content delivered via SPDY would have been (technically) exempt from WCAG 2.0, and I'd argue that was never the intent or desire.

 

 

Alastair wrote:

 

> 

The (largely circular) definitions aren’t particularly clear for this, but I don’t think it uses “web pages” as such. It doesn’t render in a user-agent, it downloads the “user-agent” as part of it.

 

​Correct, but the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines aren't about protocols (as James noted) but rather the *content* (and NOT "web pages" - see the original definition of Content in this thread, taken directly from WCAG 2.0) delivered over the web to "User Agents"... and if the protocol also supports the delivery of a 'custom' user-agent that is then rendering "Content", I'd argue that the *content* (including the custom widget application - aka role="application") is in scope (but not the delivery method).  

 

I would continue to argue (and justify my position) that this same interpretation also covers streamed video content delivered via a protocol such as 

RTSP

​ (

Real-time Streaming Protocol​

), 

​

​

RTP

​ (​

​

Real-time Transport Protocol) and

​/or​

​

​

RTCP

​ (​

​

the Real-time Transport Control Protocol

​) - all of that *content* is in scope for the requirements surrounding support materials for Multi-Media (captions, described video, transcripts, etc.)​. 

I'll further note that those requirements were in place *before* HTML5's <video> element had broad support, and covered *content* rendered in a Flash or Silverlight Player (aka "user agent").

 

A HUGE +1 to revisiting the definitions however, as this discussion clearly shows we have a gap, or at a minimum a lack of clarity.

 

 

J

​F​

 

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com> > wrote:

Ah, just found it under “content (Web content)”.

It looks like Java web start is what it says – it starts from the web, but then downloads the application (or enough of it) to run as Java.

The (largely circular) definitions aren’t particularly clear for this, but I don’t think it uses “web pages” as such. It doesn’t render in a user-agent, it downloads the “user-agent” as part of it.

It is an application package, and the accessibility API for that would surely be via Java, not a separate user agent, therefore it does not render webpages?

Secondly, is this something that would aim to conform to WCAG 2.1, or is ‘legacy’ and limited to 2.0?

Cheers,

-Alastair



On 26/04/2017, 20:32, "Gregg C Vanderheiden" <greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu> > wrote:

    the definition of Web Content is in the definition section of WCAG.

    if something meets that definition  - it would be Web Content as per WCAG.

    g


    Gregg C Vanderheiden
    greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu> 



    > On Apr 26, 2017, at 8:56 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> > wrote:
    >
    >> If when it is run it uses HTTP to get its content then it is web content. What is download it is simply a special user agent.
    >
    > A lot of things can be sent via HTTP.  Remote Desktop can be run over HTTP -- through a special user agent.  This definition might include a lot of things we haven't considered.  PhoneGap wraps web content that uses HTTP.  So does that make PhoneGap a user agent?
    >
    > Jonathan
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org> ]
    > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 2:48 PM
    > To: Laura Carlson
    > Cc: w3c-waI-gl@w3. org; public-low-vision-a11y-tf; James Nurthen
    > Subject: Re: Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG?
    >
    > Can't quite tell from your description. If it is downloaded and installed and then run it is not the web application.
    >
    > If when it is run it uses HTTP to get its content then it is web content. What is download it is simply a special user agent.
    >
    >> From your description it isn't quite clear which of the two cases it is
    >
    > Gregg
    >
    >
    >
    >> On Apr 26, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> > wrote:
    >>
    >> Hello Everyone,
    >>
    >> James asked on Oracle's Adapting Text comment [1] if Java Web Start
    >> [2] [3] is covered by WCAG.  He said, "The application is started from
    >> a URL and the application is downloaded, installed updated and run
    >> directly when clicking on a URL in a web page."
    >>
    >> Thoughts?
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >>
    >> Kindest Regards,
    >> Laura
    >>
    >> [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/222#issuecomment-297476165
    >> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Web_Start
    >> [3] https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/java_webstart.xml
    >>
    >> --
    >> Laura L. Carlson
    >>
    >









 

-- 

John Foliot

Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

 <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> john.foliot@deque.com

 

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion