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

Hmmm… why not… its not on the web anymore… 

 

otherwise we’d have to go back and unravel our WCAG definition, no?

 

Cheers,

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> 

   

  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

 

This e-mail originates from CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Any distribution, use or
copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the
intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return
e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.

 

Le présent courriel a été expédié par CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Toute
distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements
qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est
interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par
téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la
version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous
remercie de votre collaboration.

 

From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
Sent: August 23, 2013 12:36 PM
To: Hoffman, Allen
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
Subject: Re: Do we need to define 'non-web' ?

 

Gregg, Allen,

I hate this last-minute stuff...

Is it a web document if you open it via file:// <file:///\\>  ?  With
browser plug-ins I can open word documents that are stored on my local file
system in that fashion, but I don't think we want a locally stored document
to be non-Web...


Peter

On 8/23/2013 9:22 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:

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

 

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com> Oracle
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>  
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Green
OracleOracle is committed to developing practices and products that help
protect the environment