W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG?

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:25:53 +0000
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.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>
Message-ID: <1658C37A-6941-4FF9-B6C8-22DB20F64008@nomensa.com>
John wrote:

​> Correct, but the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines aren't about protocols (as James noted)



Agree, there are many methods of punting files over the internet, which it happens to use doesn’t make much difference to the user if it is same content/functionality and an application rendering it.





> 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"



If it doesn’t render “web pages”, what is the unit of testing for WCAG?



I did check that definition, it wasn’t that helpful:

“information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions”



Browsers, PDF reader and Flash/Silverlight work on a model of a local (relatively static) user-agent that is sent ‘web pages’ that define the structure, presentation & interactions.



It appears that Java web start effectively makes a custom ‘user agent’ for each application, rather than being a standard user-agent that uses the ‘web pages’ to define content & functionality. It might not load any new content or functionality from the web once installed.



Whilst this is interesting, if it isn’t under development is it relevant to WCAG 2.1?



The official FAQ has “March 2006 updates” as the latest:

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/javaws/developersguide/faq.html




I’m struggling to find any documentation since 2011, and the latest version of windows in the intro is XP, which implies it isn’t under active development so won’t change for WCAG 2.1. I’m not trying to be critical, just evaluating if we would be creating an unnecessary constraint…



Cheers,



-Alastair
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:35 UTC