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

Re: Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG?

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:59:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxzy4X5aiizXm17buDWFmJgVrTR3MtVL+T8keCWY2pZ7CQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, 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>
Hi Katie,

Thanks for the background.

Not to split too fine a hair, but that is used for the definition of "Web
pages" (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef), but not necessarily
"Content" (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contentdef), which can be
distributed over the 'network' today using a number of different protocols.

I can understand the need and desire 8-10 years ago of using "URI's via
http" as a delineator back then, but as an open question to the Working
Group, do we wish to revisit that definition today? Given that we now
consider "Native Mobile Apps" that interact over the network as also being
"in scope" for WCAG today, it would seem the original definition of
"Content" would take a higher precedent over "web pages". Additionally,
security recommendations today explicitly urge site-owners to serve up
their content via HTTPS, which again is a splitting of another fine hair,
but perhaps something we should also discuss?

Not looking to add more work to this already over-worked WG, but this kinda
feels like an important clarification to me.

JF

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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 <(703)%20371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <(703)%20371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/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>
> 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> 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
>
>
>
>     > On Apr 26, 2017, at 8:56 PM, Jonathan Avila <
> 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]
>     > 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> 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.
>
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 15:00:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 15:00:15 UTC