RE: New definition for "set of software"

I think I agree with this definition, even if its difficult to read.


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:26 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
Subject: New definition for "set of software"


 a new definition for "Set of software" has been created that gives us a chance to close the remaining 3 SC.

it is below and also at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs

The definition addresses all of the problems we had identified with previous definitions.

It is objective
            - every question about 'is this a set' that was raised so far was answerable from the definition
it doesn't include any 'accidental sets'
            - bundling software will never create a set under this
            - the fact that clicking on something opens up another application - is specifically excluded by the definition from making them related
- etc

Take a look

if you see any problems -- post them back.

thanks




Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net



set of software: (as used in WCAG2ICT)    {revised}
group of software programs that are distributed together and that can be launched and be used independently from each other, but that are interlinked bidirectionally with one another such that users can easily move from one program to another via a link, control, or other means, without taking other actions.
Note 1:  If a member of the set is separated from the set, it is no longer part of a set, and would be evaluated as any other individual software program.
Note 2:  This definition of "set of software" is derived from the characteristics of a "set" of web pages, and is used for mapping WCAG success criteria to software.  Although such sets occur frequently for web pages, such sets appear to be extremely rare for software.
One example of a set of software would be a group of programs that can be launched and used separately but are sold together and all have a menu that allows users to launch, or switch to, each of the other programs in the group.
Examples of things that are not sets of software:

     *   A suite of applications for authoring different types of documents (text, spreadsheets, presentations, etc.) but that don't provide an explicit means to launch, or switch to, each of the other programs in the group.
     *   An open office package that launches as a single program that provides multiple functionality such as writing, spreadsheet, etc., but the only way to move between programs open a document in one of the programs.
     *   A bundle of software is sold together but the only way to move between them is to use a system level menu to between programs (not a menu provided by each program that allows you to do just the other programs this set).
     *   A group of programs that would have qualified as set except that they have been installed in separate locations so that their "set" behaviors no longer work. Even though they were set at one time, because they were not installed as a set they are no longer a set and would not need to meet any success criteria created for a set.
     *   Any group of software that does not provide a way to move to the other members of the group from within each member of the group without causing some other action such as opening a document or file.