Re: Backoffice: must conform to WCAG?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Backoffice: must conform to WCAG?


>On the other hand, suppose there is a collection of XML data that is
>transferred over the Web, but which is not designed or intended to be
>presented in a user interface. This is the kind of example that is
>usually treated as not being Web content, and to which the guidelines
don't
>apply.

Yes I agree but I'm thinking, for eg:
- access to a backoffice: you set login and password in an HTML page.
All the functionality are in HTML pages so the pages, for accessibility
may conform to WCAG
- access to webmail service: this is a service that is not public (you
need login and password) but the services are served by web contents, so
may conform to WCAG
- e-learning applications: this service is offered to people that are
registered to the course (not public, private area), but this may
conform to WCAG.
- CMS editor inside backoffice: this is an authoring tool, so this
eventually may conform to ATAG.
- backoffice of an e-learning service by web interface: must have menus
(like A-Tutor) that are web contents and that may conform to WCAG.

>Question: is there a more accurate way of defining or characterizing
>content  which is not designed to appear in a user interface?

I think that the point where I want to focus is that the backoffice,
webmail, etc. that are "web contents" where people can access over
authentication, but are always web contents.

Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 05:35:07 UTC