W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Interpretation of "web page" in software context

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:58:48 +0200
To: "Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov>
Cc: "'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org'" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <1F3B9956-5F4B-4B48-B6F4-1E4873AB15FA@trace.wisc.edu>
got it 

thx

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

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net








On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:36 AM, Crowell, Pierce wrote:

> WCAG is not a regulatory body and implementation impasses we have here should be carried to regulatory bodies as outstanding issues regulation should address.  I am thankful this is not a regulatory body. If we can establish definitive language, great.  I just don’t want us to lose consensus because we have a correctness impasse. 
>  
> If you mean this language?
> This applies directly as written, and as described in  INTENT  from Understanding WCAG 2.0  (above) if the term Web Page is replaced by the term  "interaction context"  or by the definition  "the current set of input and output elements available to the user to see, hear, feel or act on, --  where the set is limited to those elements a) intended by the author (person, group or organization) to be available to the user at the same time, and b) that are present without the user acting other than simply navigating among the elements".
>  
> The language addresses most instances and is descriptive enough to be meaningful to many developers.  I hope we can move forward.  If some on the TF have issues on the correctness gaps, consider using an analog as a way to reach consensus with language that will also be easier to understand.
>  
> Pierce
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 5:55 PM
> To: Crowell, Pierce
> Cc: 'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Interpretation of "web page" in software context
>  
> Hi Pierce
>  
> I see what you mean.
>  
> Take a look at the latest post and see what you think.   
>  
> For regulatory work Im afraid we will have to define things.  but I think we did it along the line that you were suggesting. 
>  
> Yes?  no? 
>  
>  
> Gregg
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> 
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
> http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Crowell, Pierce wrote:
> 
> 
> The email list took its time putting my message out there and a lot of good conversation has transpired since.  Bruce even used the “analog” term.  What I mean by the term: provide examples and be clear that the examples are not a template but an analog (similar to how an X behaves in a Y).
>  
> For instance, for SW “web page" and "set of web pages” can be described as similar to a collection of SW interfaces intentionally grouped by a developer for a given “interactive context” (e.g. a rich text editor with tools and menus, a print dialog box, or a directory look up screen with search box, results pane, and selection buttons). 
>  
> The relationship is similar to trying to describe the solidity of matter as compared to quantum mechanics.  Web is to the physical world, as SW is to the subatomic world…there are just too many probable outcomes in the SW world to make reliable and understandable connections.    In the example above “can” and “similar” let the reader know it is just an analog and that they need to map the analog to their instance.  In short, you trust them to make the connection for us because we cannot do it for them (we have no information about their instance and there are too many variables).
>  
> If you want to define it, we’re sunk on consensus.  If you want something that is true all/most the time, we’re sunk on correctness.  Use an analogy and you lose on correctness and specificity and you give the reader something digestible, and let them know they have to make the connection for themselves.
>  
> Pierce
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:52 PM
> To: Crowell, Pierce
> Cc: 'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Interpretation of "web page" in software context
>  
> Screens could be 15 different applications  -- and beyond the ability of any author to be responsible for.
> Also we need to cover pure audio systems......
>  
> but keep tossing the terms over the wall. 
>  
>  
> What did you mean by 
> I suggest the approach be finding an analog instead of a single term. 
> ??
>  
>  
>  
> Gregg
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> 
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
> http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Crowell, Pierce wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not present for some of these conversations, but we at SSA use the term “screens” to cover both SW and Web pages.  Like any other single term, for SW it falls short, so any term will need supplemental information and caveats. 
>  
> I suggest the approach be finding an analog instead of a single term. 
>  
> Pierce
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:48 AM
> To: Andi Snow-Weaver
> Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Interpretation of "web page" in software context
>  
> Hmmm
> might the answer be found by exploring why 'interaction context' doesn’t seem to work?
>  
> a good place to start might be in finding out what the problems we have are - and then finding a way to address them.
>  
> Can someone or someones summarize the problems with interaction context? 
>  
> Gregg
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> 
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
> http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're quickly coming to the point in our work where we will not be able to reach consensus on the guidance for the success criteria until we come to consensus on interpretation of "web page" and "set of web pages" in the software context.
> 
> The proposal to use "interaction context" for "web page" has not yet been accepted. 
> 
> We need another proposal. Ideas anyone?
> 
> Andi
> 
>  
>  
>  




Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 22:59:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 June 2012 22:59:24 GMT