- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:29:34 -0600
- To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, 'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG' <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I'm not sure that type of content doesn't pass. Have we checked? Which ones do we have trouble with. 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 Jason White Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:15 AM To: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Backoffice: must conform to WCAG? Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG writes: > > > >If there is no technical difference I would say that the guidelines > >shouldn't draw any distinction. If it is used by a human being then it > >qualifies as Web content and the guidelines can be applied to it just > >as they apply to other types of content. > > I agree. 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. Question: is there a more accurate way of defining or characterizing content which is not designed to appear in a user interface?
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 00:32:09 UTC