- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:29:41 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
- To: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
- Cc: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Definitely! The relevant definitions from WCAG 2.0 are 1 "web pages" and 2 "content (web content)" which I have included here below. 1. Web page a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent Note 1: Although any "other resources" would be rendered together with the primary resource, they would not necessarily be rendered simultaneously with each other. Note 2: For the purposes of conformance with these guidelines, a resource must be "non-embedded" within the scope of conformance to be considered a Web page. Example 1: A Web resource including all embedded images and media. Example 2: A Web mail program built using Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX). The program lives entirely at http://example.com/mail, but includes an inbox, a contacts area and a calendar. Links or buttons are provided that cause the inbox, contacts, or calendar to display, but do not change the URI of the page as a whole. Example 3: A customizable portal site, where users can choose content to display from a set of different content modules. Example 4: When you enter "http://shopping.example.com/" in your browser, you enter a movie-like interactive shopping environment where you visually move around in a store dragging products off of the shelves around you and into a visual shopping cart in front of you. Clicking on a product causes it to be demonstrated with a specification sheet floating alongside. This might be a single-page Web site or just one page within a Web site. 2. content (Web content) 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 -----Original Message----- >From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu> >Sent: Sep 22, 2011 11:41 AM >To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net> >Cc: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org> >Subject: Re: Comments on Target Audience - websites > >That's a good point, Katie. Thanks for pointing it out. > >Should we include "websites" in our glossary, then, in case other people >are confused? > >Mike > >On 9/22/2011 11:27 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote: >> Concerning the second issue "websites" to "websites and web-delivered applications"......... >> >> I understand why this is being suggested, however, WCAG has a definition of "websites" that covers all kinds of web content. WCAG is web CONTENT accessibility guidelines, not the HTML accessibility guidelines. >> >> My 2 cents.............:-) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Michael S Elledge<elledge@msu.edu> >>> Sent: Sep 22, 2011 11:06 AM >>> To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org"<public-wai-evaltf@w3.org> >>> Subject: Comments on Target Audience >>> >>> Hi Everyone-- >>> >>> We may want to either revise a current use scenario or add a new one >>> that includes "vendors or organizations wishing to evaluate websites" >>> since I don't see a reference that would relate to companies doing this >>> work. >>> >>> Also, I would propose that we revise wording from "websites" to >>> "websites and web-delivered applications" since part of WCAG 2.0's >>> intent is to be technology-agnostic, and websites may be interpreted as >>> html-based content. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Mike >>> >> >> * katie * >> >> Katie Haritos-Shea >> Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst >> >> 703-371-5545 >> >> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, >> but they will never forget how you made them feel....... >> > * katie * Katie Haritos-Shea Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst 703-371-5545 People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will never forget how you made them feel.......
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 16:30:10 UTC