Re: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of "objects of assessment"

Hi Allen,

	 I agree with you comment about author intent being hard to evaluate as a third party -- so I don't use it anywhere in this document except in explaining the thought process.  

Please note that "intent" or "intended" is not used in any of the definitions or terms.  The word "intended" is only used in describing the thought behind the outcome.  

Intent is never actually used in any of the proposed resolutions or definitions. 

For example,  If the author/publisher distributes things separately as well as in a group,  they clearly did not intend for that group to be a single entity.     So we are applying the rule based on author objectively measurable behavior.   

Does that help? 


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
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net









On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:32 AM, "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV> wrote:

> Hi all:
>  
> Pierce from SSA and I have wrestled with this for a while now and hopefully this email can wrap some of our discussion up.
>  
> I think Gregg has done an admirable job trying to assemble a model for figuring out the scoping of what folks are developing or evaluating or using when it isn’t a “web page”, “set of web page”, or “multiple web page”.  This is really the crux of the work.  I still am not convinced that multiple ways makes sense outside the Web context, and that page titles don’t really equate to dialog titles in software.  However, that said, I think the term object of assessment was intended to mean scope of authoring or evaluation, and I’d love to see this material developed as additional understanding materials for the final document.  I’m not sure we needed the conformance section because we didn’t change the actual conformance process for the nonWeb elements, just showed the homework here that it doesn’t break things.  Finally, and this is probably the most challenging item for some, the concept that we would be able to evaluate things based on author intent is really something that goes against the grain of objectivity.  Things like determining sets by author intent is not possible without “use commonsense”, and if sense were more common, and all that comes to mind for me.  But, this is a great clarification of scoping, and serves as the “model” for figuring out where the lines are for folks and I can live with the model—especially if some of the author intent parts could be further restricted.  I’m sure this can’t be resolved to machine testable determinable requirements and outcomes all the time, but anything we can do in that direction is always a good thing to reduce burden on all involved.
>  
> I am unable to participate tomorrow, but would really like to see recognition that 2.4.5 is not something that, even when using this model, is easy to apply for software, that bypass blocks poses challenges in software but is more feasible, and that we accept this reality and be done.
>  
> Whew.
>  
> I think this closes most of the conceptual gap for me in how I can effectively educate others on how to apply WCAG 2.0 outside Web, with the caveat that for a few things such application is very limited at best, and prone to more ambiguity than is good for consistent usage.
>  
> So, if we could  see a draft proposal of the model for the understanding portion, probably at the top of the document, that would help, and then see some text recognizing challenges with 2.4.5 and bypass blocks that would be great. 
>  
>  
> Allen Hoffman
> Deputy Executive Director
> Department of Homeland Security
> Office of Accessible Systems and Technology
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Andi Snow-Weaver [mailto:andisnow@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:47 AM
> To: Crowell, Pierce; jbrewer@w3.org
> Cc: 'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force'
> Subject: RE: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of "objects of assessment"
>  
> Pierce,
> 
> It's true that the four success criteria (2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3) were written for the web and they are either automatically or easily met by non-web ICT if we accept Gregg's proposal. I agree with Gregg's interpretation of how WCAG should be applied though. It wasn't meant to apply to parts of web pages. If it was, then 2.4.2 could be interpreted to mean you have to have headings for each paragraph. 
> 
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "while the new terms add perspective and aid applicability and scope determinations, they do not fix the problems that I think WCAG (if it desires) or regulatory bodies should address"? This sounds like you think we should be defining new requirements for software and documents. Maybe Judy can weigh in here but I don't believe we could get our work statement expanded to do that as it is clearly out of scope for the W3C.
> 
> We have made so much progress as a group and I really hope we can come together to finish the work that we were charged to do. 
> 
> Andi
> 
> <image001.gif>"Crowell, Pierce" ---10/04/2012 08:25:18 AM---Gregg, I am not able to attend Friday and have problems with your proposal.  Defining new terms may
> 
> From: "Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov>
> To: "'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force'" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
> Date: 10/04/2012 08:25 AM
> Subject: RE: model for applying  WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of  "objects of assessment"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gregg,
> I am not able to attend Friday and have problems with your proposal.  Defining new terms may change people’s perspectives, but it does not address the problem.  These four requirements were not written for documents and SW and while the new terms add perspective and aid applicability and scope determinations, they do not fix the problems that I think WCAG (if it desires) or regulatory bodies should address.  I think we either change the charter so we can make a more appropriate recommendation, or we say in our report that these cannot reliably map to documents and SW.  
>  
> I don’t like but and willing to live with additional terms, but I don’t think they solve the problem.
>  
> Pierce
>  
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:15 AM
> To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
> Subject: RE: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of “objects of assessment”
>  
> REPOSTING THIS WITH A LINK RATHER THAN AN ATTACHMENT (since the attachment was stripped off for some) 
>  
>  
> Hi All,
>  
> I finished my writeup evaluating all of the SC,  looking for consistency,  and proposing an approach to resolving the final 4 plus the conformance requirements based on the concept of "object of assessment". 
>  
> It is attached. 
>  
> the abstract is below 
>  
> nite. 
>  
> G
>  
> Use this link to download the document : http://goo.gl/Shf8d
>  
>  
> This whitepaper is provided to help in the discussion of how to apply WCAG 2.0 to non-web content and software in a manner equivalent the way WCAG 2.0 was designed to be applied to web content.  It starts with a discussion of a concept of “objects of assessment” and then shows how this can lead to a better understanding both of WCAG 2.0, and how to apply it to non-web ICT.   It shows that such an approach leads to both an agreement with the 34 provisions the WCAG2ICT task force has already reached consensus on.  But it shows how the WCAG2ICT decisions can be explained by a couple simple rules rather than as 34 individual decisions.   
> It also leads to a resolution for the final 4 provisions as well as the WCAG Conformance requirements.  This resolution comes from a better understanding of what we are assessing on 3 of the 4 and how they are different from the others (leading to our problem in resolving them).  A resolution to the 4th is also proposed.  The paper concludes with some observations and a full summary (listing each provision) and showing what the solutions would look like in place.  
> (As a bonus the summary also shows what the task force's suggested global replacement of  electronic documents with “non-embedded content” would look like – thus closing one of our action items). 
>  
> (see page 12 for a 1 page summary of the recommendations, then read paper for rationale)
>  
>  
> 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
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
> http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>