- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:36:06 +0200
- To: gv@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-id: <001701c2cd34$b2f85d90$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>
No one has to understand RDF
in fact, with the approach we are working on even the user agents will not
have to understand RDF. This is a server side solution. The RDF allows a
service or server to render an alternive accessible rendering of each site.
you can think of it as an accessible mirror site, (although this is a
simplification)
All the best,
Lisa Seeman
UnBounded Access
Widen the World Web
lisa@ubaccess.com
www.ubaccess.com
Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:47 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo
Hmmmm
A few questions.
1.. Would this be accessible if the person couldn't handle RDF or RSS?
2.. Are we requiring that users have RDF or RSS savvy access? Even on
public systems?
3.. Is RDF / RSS savvy user agents our baseline for the guidelines?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lisa Seeman
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:47 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo
Let me try to explain this one.
We have three components
1 ) the site - which by itself is inaccessible
2) an RDF file full of information about accessibility resources about
resources.- that was gobbled gook (sorry Avi) lets try again
the RDF file may say:
This resources (like a image file) has this alternive text (a url of
alternive text or the alternive itself) that is useful for this user profile
(impaired vision) or to comply with this checkpoint (WCAG02 1.1)
This recourse (like a complex text snippet) has this alternive text (a URI
of alternive text or the alternive itself) that is useful for this user
profile (in need of literal and clear text)or to comply with this checkpoint
(WCAG02 4.1)
3) a portal:
takes the rdf, and the resources, combines them to make a rendering that
is just right for the user.
All together you have an accessibility server side solution.
Note: the RDF and the portal do not need to made by the author.
Note: you can add RDF to a schema solving a lot of the problems defined in
XAG for all documents baised on that schema
Note: UB Access is making a (free) portal that does this, (I hope it will
be working in time for WCAG02), so anyone can make any site accessible
without the authors cooperation - so long as the site is valid enough to
not kill Html Tidy or other XML conversion tool
I had offered to edit an RDF techniques document (with sample ontology).
Did we have a clear design on that? I think the ontology should be reviewed
by this group and in the open non proprietary space, or it will not be very
useful.
All the best,
Lisa Seeman
UnBounded Access
Widen the World Web
lisa@ubaccess.com
www.ubaccess.com
Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:20 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo
Roberto wrote:
So i suggest to change the original proposal of Greeg for the claim [1]:
with this sentence:
Historical and Third Party Copyrighted Materials
Materials which were not developed by or for the entity sponsoring the
site and whose development was not under the control of the entity
sponsoring the site are required to produce standard output using
technologies like RDF or RSS to let the site meet these guidelines rather
than being part of the site.
I'm not sure I understand.
How does RDF or RSS allow you to post inaccessible docs on your site
for download (so you can sell them for example) and still meet the
guidelines?
Gregg
PS I am assuredly not wedded to my text - which I see lots of problems
with. So I am not arguing to go back to it.
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG [mailto:rscano@iwa-italy.org]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 8:25 AM
To: Lee Roberts; gv@trace.wisc.edu; 'WCAG List'
Subject: Re: Conformance Claims and Logo
I agree in all...
We can ask to use RDF of RSS (available at http://purl.org/rss/1.0/,
that is
used also by W3C for news feed.)
We do the same with some of our web sites at least for news "headers" or
for
all the articles and contents.
So i suggest to change the original proposal of Greeg for the claim [1]:
Historical and Third Party Copyrighted Materials
Materials which were not developed by or for the entity sponsoring the
site
and whose development was not under the control of the entity sponsoring
the
site are not required to meet these guidelines in order for a site to
meet
the guidelines. These items would be considered commodities or products
delivered by the site rather than being part of the site.
with this sentence:
Historical and Third Party Copyrighted Materials
Materials which were not developed by or for the entity sponsoring the
site
and whose development was not under the control of the entity sponsoring
the
site are required to produce standard output using tecnologies like RDF
or
RSS to let the site meet these guidelines rather than being part of the
site.
Roberto:
----
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JanMar/0150.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>; "'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'"
<rscano@iwa-italy.org>;
"'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo
One of the major news sources for web sites is Moreover.com. On their
FAQ page they explain why they are better than free services. To put it
in a nutshell they have their information in XML. Through XML they the
have the hyperlink to they news source, but many times people put "click
here" type text for the links.
What I was referring to was using the XML source in a manner consistent
with accessibility since the designer has to create the XSLT file to
parse the XML. That can then turn the inaccessible versions provided in
JavaScript or VBScript, and the "click here" versions into an accessible
version. That would not be plagiarism nor violation of the Millennium
Copyright Act or any other act prohibiting repackaging of services or
products.
Typically, the link will take the visitor to a totally different site
which at that time is out of our control for accessibility. However,
there are times when the services allow the information to be pulled
into a template for presenting the news or services while remaining on
the initial site. That again is done typically via XML.
My home page is set to Netscape's news postings. Typically when I check
a news article or current event I'm taken to a totally different site.
However, the information on the Netscape site is primarily inaccessible
due to their programming and not using ALT attributes or providing frame
titles.
If the full article is pulled in from the originating source into a
subdomain, then would that resolve the issue since we are now outside
the "accessible domain"? For instance, I visited tomorrow.com and
received a news feed. In this news feed was an article title that
interested me and I clicked on it. Instead of being sent to the
originating service, I'm sent to a subdomain like feed.tomorrow.com.
That removes me from the originating site because subdomains are
considered separate domains in most regards.
Could we require that when news feeds are used on a site and the entire
article is available through the visited site that a subdomain be used
instead of the main domain of the visited site?
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 3:11 PM
To: 'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'; 'WCAG List'
Subject: RE: Conformance Claims and Logo
Hi all
I knew that one would start a conversation. Because I see big problems
both ways and no way to solve them.
If something is copyrighted and inaccessible, it is a felony (Federal
crime)
to create an accessible version in many cases. Plagiarism and the
Millennium Copyright Act are two examples. And there are more.
Also, if you click on a document it downloads to your computer and you
expect it to be accessible. (even HTML).
But if you click on a program and download it you think of it as a
product, not content.
So what if you click on a book?
A film?
A DVD?
A PDF?
A Movie stream?
A Video stream?
A Stock Quote stream in a proprietary (non copyable and therefore
non-screen reader compatible form)?
When is it content and when is it product?
When is it even legal to repackage the content accessibly (that
therefore pirate-able)?
However, we don't want to give blanket approval that content on a web
site can just be inaccessible if it came from somewhere else......
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:31 PM
To: WCAG List
Subject: Re: Conformance Claims and Logo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Historical and Third Party Copyrighted Materials
Materials which were not developed by or for the entity sponsoring the
site and whose development was not under the control of the entity
sponsoring the site are not required to meet these guidelines in order
for a site to meet the guidelines. These items would be considered
commodities or products delivered by the site rather than being part of
the site.
Roberto:
Sorry... but, for example, if i insert inside a well-conformed web site
an application with code generated by a package (or, for example, a Java
application) that is copyrighted and not accessible, with this claim i
can define "accessible" my web site?
I think that we need that we need to define in some part of the
guidelines (a checkpoint?) that: "An equivalent version of the materials
which were not developed by or for the entity sponsoring the site and
whose development was not under the control of the entity sponsoring the
site must be available for use the logo for the level reached."
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:37:09 UTC