W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: Backoffice: must conform to WCAG?

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
Message-id: <0HUY00D88PXA5X@smtp3.doit.wisc.edu>

I'm not sure that type of content doesn't pass.   Have we checked?

Which ones do we have trouble with.   


 -- ------------------------------ 
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

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

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