----- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:33 UTC