RE: Do we need to define 'non-web' ?

Gregg:

I think we do need to define it and thanks for a starter.

Can you include a plain language phrase somewhere like:
Not accessed via a user-agent or "browser".  A definition as you propose seems "accurate" but leads to more definitions and starts to become an endless trail.  Sometimes accuracy can get in the way of communication even though that sounds so backwards.




From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 11:59 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
Subject: Do we need to define 'non-web' ?


Someone asked me the definition of non-web.   and I went to WCAG2ICT to see and we don't define it

we define document
but not non-web though we use it everywhere

I don't know if we need to define it -- but if we do - (and is suspect we might) here is one to look at -- and a heads up that this will be on todays discussion at least.



non-web  (as used in WCAG2ICT)

            not obtained from a URI using HTTP, and not a resource that is only used in the rendering or intended only to be rendered together with something obtained from a URI using HTTP.




RATIONALE
WCAG2ICT is about things that are not already covered by  WCAG

 WCAG applies to things obtained from a URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it



Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net