Re: Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG?

Alastair wrote:

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

The "content"?
​

I know I've done compliance evaluations for 'web components' and other page
includes (via PHP, ASP, ColdFusion - ha!) that weren't technically "pages"
but rather code snippets that were then dynamically assembled to create a
"page" (or screen).

The same would hold true for CMS "plugins" which may not be complete pages
either, but rather embeddable widgets for a page. Yes, you *could* evaluate
those widgets as part of a whole-page evaluation, but I'd argue that
wouldn't be a 'requirement' for compliance evaluation, as I am sure that
many of us have done evaluations on smaller units of code than that.

JF ​

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:59 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> 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-297476
>> 165
>>     >> [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
>



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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion