W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Is Java Web Start covered by WCAG?

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:09:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxyvDSBJgdJSpng_KZTRkVkEBLrbn0Qf9Sfcc2KPyf_Rjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Gregg,

This Working Group was recently (27 January 2017) re-chartered with a new
name: The *Accessibility Guidelines Working Group* (AG WG).
Please see: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/ag-charter

As I recall, one of the drivers for this change was the fact that ATAG and
UAAG working groups were wrapped up at the W3C, and / but we recognize that
"accessibility guidance" is a bit more blurred these days. The Project
Silver TF will likely be rolling in requirements / guidance in the Silver
deliverable that would presumably have emerged from those former Working
Groups (as best we can), which is why we decided to drop the "Web Content"
identifier. The current Working Group scope is as follows:


The group will:

   - Develop WCAG 2.1 to address gaps in WCAG 2.0 related to content and
   incorporate updated Success Criteria to address content viewed on small
   display sizes and used with touch and stylus-based input modalities -
   features particularly common for mobile devices. WCAG 2.1 will also
   incorporate updated Success Criteria related to content and digital
   publications accessed by people with low-vision and with cognitive
   disabilities. To keep scope focused, candidate Success Criteria will be
   vetted according to careful WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria acceptance criteria.

   - Develop a framework and repository of test rules, to promote a unified
   interpretation of WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 among different web accessibility
   test tools.

   - Incubate requirements for a major update to WCAG to address usability
   and conformance challenges.

   - Continue development of non-normative documents to support
   implementation of accessibility guidelines.


Based upon the above Scope, I note that the term "content" appears 3 times
in the first bullet point (but with zero reference to "web pages", or
"http" :-) )​


On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>

> alistair
> good definitions  and good analysis
> A question and a thought
>    - Is the working group (called Web Content  … working group)
>     chartered now to work on non-web content?   if so this is news.  If not
>    then you are restricted to Web Content
>    - (the sentence that they MAY apply elsewhere seems fair — but it
>    should also say that “ However, since these guidelines make the assumption
>    that there is an accessible user agent included they are NOT SUFFICENT by
>    themselves to be used for anything other than Web Content by themselves.
> g
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
> -       A traditional website *rendered in the browser* of a mobile
> device.
> -       A ‘*Progressive Web App*’ (an umbrella term for various recent
> technologies including offline stuff) that opens in the browser, but is
> optimised for mobile devices and it may not show the browser chrome.
> -       A *native app wrapper* around an HTML based app, often using a
> framework to minimise the differences between iOS and Android. These are
> not opened in the browser but it may use the same (or very similar)
> rendering engine.
> -       A *native app that loads HTML* views, not in the browser but it
> may use the same (or very similar) rendering engine. These may or may not
> load from the internet.
> If it loads using http:// then it is a browser not web content.
> -       *A native app* with nothing to do with the internet or web (W3C)
> technologies.
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:38 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com
> <acampbell@nomensa.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 1:30 PM
> Well, most connections are now over httpS, and behind the scenes that is
> becoming http2, so it doesn't work from that point of view.
> *[Jason] I agree, and it obviously depends on whether you treat HTTP as
> including all of the variants (whether TLS is used or not, whether it’s
> HTTP 1.1 or HTTP 2, etc.).*
> I'm less certain of this but i believe that a lot of video is delivered by
> UDP or RTSP, have you checked to see if a particular video is covered by
> WCAG based on the protocol it uses?
> *[Jason] This is a good point. If the video is embedded in an HTML-based
> Web page, then whether the Web page conforms or not presumably depends on
> whether or not the video conforms, so it’s covered. However, if (assuming
> this is possible) it’s linked to rather than embedded, then it’s more of a
> separate resource and questions arise.*
> > If we want to widen it for future versions that is another matter... but
> as far as clarity, the definition of web page is very clear in the
> standard. It says exactly what the working group  intended it to say.
> And there are plenty of people who can't work out what that means anymore..
> *[Jason] I agree there are issues; I agree the definition should be
> widened (we have an open issue on that question).*
> ------------------------------
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> Thank you for your compliance.

John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Saturday, 29 April 2017 00:10:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:12 UTC