Re: Backoffice: must conform to WCAG?

On Mar 24, 2004, at 11:17 AM, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:
> MM:
> Yes. It's in WCAG 2 [1]:
>
> These principles apply only to Web content presented to a human reader.
>
> Roberto:
> This means that *all* web contents, also the web contents where "human
> reader" can enter/access by password (webmail, etc. etc.) must conform
> to WCAG...

Not raw XML, or XML formats that don't have a default presentation, as 
Jason suggested in his message. We explicitly exclude those in WCAG 2. 
We've strayed from your original question about Web-based email, or 
stuff that's in HTML that aren't open to the public. There's no doubt 
in my mind that Web-based management consoles and the like should be 
made to conform to WCAG.

But where we have no idea how the format will be transformed into 
something usable by humans, we can't instruct users of, say, a Web 
Services app to write the payload accessibly. SOAP wasn't designed to 
be delivered to humans. (That is, SOAP the protocol, not soap the 
cleaning material. Keep showering, everybody!)

However, if the service has a Web front end, then it should conform to 
WCAG. (And, if any of its payload is final form, which is to say, if a 
SOAP return value or an RSS feed contains HTML that forms a user 
interface, that content should be accessible too.) But if it's just a 
set of data that doesn't stand on its own, then it is outside the scope 
of WCAG.

You were correct in your original message: Content in a CMS or Web mail 
app, etc., should conform to WCAG, and any embedded content editors 
that generate HTML should conform to ATAG.

-
m

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 17:05:58 UTC