RE: fyi - discussion in WCAG on -web-content

I totally agree that accessibility should ultimately apply to all electronic
content, but policy makers are looking at where the WCAG applies in its
current state, which is web content. I think we need to get that definition
delineated as a group, in a way that offers help to policy makers understand
as to when the WCAG committee considers an office document web content or
when it is not. If we can't do that, then others will make there own
definitions, in policy and in law, and maybe that's OK, but in that case we
may see a fragmentation of standards...

 

But I think as a committee, we need to at least be able to say whether we
consider an Excel spreadsheet posted online is web content, and therefore
whether WCAG applies to it or not. There is a lot riding on that simple
position, both in law and in policy.

 

Which is always a danger when policy and law issues get tangled up with the
simple advice we give to people to make their content more accessible, which
is our heart.

 

David MacDonald

www.eramp.com 

 

 

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: May-21-11 2:04 AM
To: w3c-waI-gl@w3. org
Subject: Re: fyi - discussion in WCAG on -web-content

 

Jan Richards wrote:



And I would add that I think the issue of whether the file is at a URI or
local is a bit of a red herring since it's very possible to have an HTML
website in a local folder for local offline use.

 

I agree

 

If it is not on a web site, it is not web content.    So it would not be
bound by any laws relating to web content.  And WCAG conformance provisions
won't work.  But a websot

 

I THINK the original question had to do with conformance to a particular
Canadian rule.  If that rule is about web content - then content off of the
web is not covered.  If it does include content on and off the web -- then
indeed this discussion is off target. 

 

In the end - I think  (as Jan is suggesting I believe) that we should get
out of thinking about web content being accessible and think about
information being accessible - especially if it is in any kind of electronic
form.   Otherwise we end up with these strange conversations about something
needing to be accessible if I email a link to it in my email but not if I
include it as an attachment in my email. 

 

 

Gregg
-----------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

On May 21, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Boland Jr, Frederick E. wrote:





fyi Best Tim Boland NIST

 

  _____  

From: Richards, Jan [jrichards@ocad.ca]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:11 AM
To: Boland Jr, Frederick E.
Subject: RE: fyi - discussion in WCAG on -web-content

Hi Tim,

 

Sure, thanks for asking.

 

And I would add that I think the issue of whether the file is at a URI or
local is a bit of a red herring since it's very possible to have an HTML
website in a local folder for local offline use.

 

...and the Excel application...is definitely capable of being a web content
Authoring Tool (as per ATAG2).

 

Cheers,

Jan

 

--

(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.

jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844

Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/

Faculty of Design | OCAD University

 

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. [mailto:frederick.boland@nist.gov] 
Sent: May 20, 2011 9:58 AM
To: Richards, Jan
Subject: RE: fyi - discussion in WCAG on -web-content

 

Thanks so much for your insights.  Is it OK to forward this message on to
Loretta (for contribution to WCAG discussion)?

 

Best, Tim

 

  _____  

From: Richards, Jan [jrichards@ocad.ca]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:00 PM
To: Boland Jr, Frederick E.
Subject: RE: fyi - discussion in WCAG on -web-content

Hi Tim,

 

Thanks for the heads up...

 

My 2-cents are that it depends. Excel docs are best considered web content
when they include images, media, links to other resources etc.

 

As you may know, we (the IDRC) did a project to produce guidance on how to
produce accessible office documents. Here's the overview:
http://adod.idrc.ocad.ca/overview

 

In it, we had to figure out where to make a reasonable split between web
content and office document content. Here's what we came up with:

 

The ADOD Assessment Framework specifically targets office documents, which
are defined as computer documents that are:

*	Intended to be used by people (i.e., not computer code),
*	Text-based (i.e., not simply images, although they may contain
images),
*	Fully printable (i.e., where dynamic features are limited to
automatic page numbering, table of contents, etc. and do not include audio,
video, or embedded interactivity),
*	Self-contained (i.e., without hyperlinks to other resources unlike
web content), and
*	Typical of office-style workflows (Reports, letters, memos, budgets,
presentations, etc.).

 

That said, it doesn't really matter too much since our ADOD assessment
framework was just a subset of WCAG 2.0 anyway.

 

Cheers,

Jan

 

--

(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.

jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844

Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/

Faculty of Design | OCAD University

 

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. [mailto:frederick.boland@nist.gov] 
Sent: May 19, 2011 4:13 PM
To: Richards, Jan
Subject: fyi - discussion in WCAG on -web-content

 

There is an interesting discussion going on in WCAG WG list currently about
definition of web content/web resource/user agent, in the context of Excel
spreadsheet (is Excel -web-content)?.

There is a lot on the GL mail list recently on this..  I mention this
because may have relevance to/implications for ATAG (and previous AUWG
discussions), and Jutta is mentioned in one of the posts I think.

 

Just thought you might want to know.. hope I'm not violating any
confidences, but the GL list I think is public..

Thanks Tim