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.