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

Re: Closed non-embedded content???

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:14:56 -0700
Message-ID: <5081DEF0.9060905@oracle.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com>, Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>, "stf416@etsi.org" <stf416@etsi.org>

On 10/19/2012 2:20 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com 
> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>> Kiran,
>> What you are really talking about is how a system closed to screen 
>> reading AT, but which provides its own self-voicing functionality, 
>> deals with certain media.  And how agencies deal with this situation.
>> Clearly we need to capture somewhere that a federal agency shall not 
>> procure (or produce and provide to the public) eBooks with a "do not 
>> speak flag" set on them.  That is the fundamental issue.
> You are talking about M316  -- not WCAG2ICT I presume.

M376.  Yes.

>> Since with eBooks we are talking about non-embedded content, we need 
>> to capture this as an issue/property of non-embedded content.  While 
>> you could fix this in some sense in the eBook (e.g. "don't purchase 
>> eBooks which respect a "do not speak" flag), such a remedy would be 
>> inappropriately broad.
> I presume you meant  "don't purchase ebook READER/PLAYER that respect 
> a 'do not speak' flag" ?    (eBooks don't respect the flag -- they are 
> the ones that SET the flag.)

Yup.  Typing too fast.

>> I wonder if this is simply an example of a necessary provision that 
>> doesn't come directly out of WCAG A/AA (since you don't have 
>> DRM-encoded HTML!).  So perhaps this needs a remedy tailored to DRM 
>> situations - a provision noting that no content shall be acquired / 
>> disseminated / used where such content expressly disables 
>> accessibility features (such as the "no not speak" flag of xyz format 
>> eBooks).
> Agree that we should not dig into DRM issues in WCAG2ICT .



>>      Peter
>> On 10/19/2012 12:36 PM, Kiran Kaja wrote:
>>> It appears as if we are trying to combine multiple issues.
>>> First, here is a clear and simple definition of closed functionality 
>>> from the Mandate 376 EN.
>>> *closed functionality:* characteristics that prevent a user from 
>>> attaching or installing assistive technology
>>> for the purposes of clause 10 in the Mandate 376, we are only 
>>> concerned with non-web non-embedded content. You wouldn’t attach or 
>>> install assistive technology directly to a DRM protected content. If 
>>> you do not have the necessary permissions to access the DRM content, 
>>> you will not be able to access the content irrespective of you being 
>>> an assistive technology user or not.
>>> Now, there is an ebook platform in the market (Kindle) which has a 
>>> specific flag to disable TTS output. but this TTS flag has nothing 
>>> to do with assistive technology. The TTS/voice output feature is a 
>>> feature provided by the platform. You *cannot* attach assistive 
>>> technology to either the non-embedded content or the user agent on 
>>> this platform. So, the user agent is closed functionality. And 
>>> perhaps one can say that the content on this platform may 
>>> potentially also be closed. But in this context, the content has no 
>>> use or application outside the user agent. In other words, no user 
>>> can do anything with this content outside of the platform.
>>> Both Adobe Digital Editions on Mac and PC and iBooks on the iOS 
>>> platform are used to read protected ebooks. If you have the 
>>> necessary permissions to access the content on these platforms, they 
>>> let you use your assistive technology to read those books. On the 
>>> other hand, using Kindle as an example for closed non-embedded 
>>> content doesn’t make sense as the Kindle platform itself is closed.
>>> Let us not confuse/combine “attaching or installing assistive 
>>> technology” and “TTS Flag”. They are two different issues. And as 
>>> per the definition of closed functionality in the EN, we are only 
>>> concerned with “attaching or installing assistive technology”.
>>> Regards,
>>> Kiran Kaja
>>> Adobe Systems
>>> *From:*Loïc Martínez Normand [mailto:loic@fi.upm.es]
>>> *Sent:* 19 October 2012 19:31
>>> *To:* Peter Korn
>>> *Cc:* Michael Pluke; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: Closed non-embedded content???
>>> Hi,
>>> Sorry for being late in this thread, but here are my "two cents".
>>> I agree with Gregg and Peter. The non-web non-embedded content can 
>>> be closed (by DRM) to accessibility features such as speech output. 
>>> Of course it is the user agent who will make this "closure" happen. 
>>> But if the content has the "voice output disabled" bit, then the 
>>> user agent will be unable to provide non-visual access (of course, 
>>> if the user agent behaves properly according to DRM). And, as Peter 
>>> says, this is a "classical" example of "closed by policy".
>>> To me this is not different to interactivity. Non-web non-embedded 
>>> content, according to our definition, can be interactive, but the 
>>> interactivity will only happen when the user agent is presenting the 
>>> content.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Loïc
>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com 
>>> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>> The DRM examples that Gregg raises in this thread arise from a 
>>> combination of the document & the user agent.  In order for the DRM 
>>> to work, the document (and any transmission of the document) needs 
>>> to be encrypted, with the user agent doing the decryption.  And the 
>>> situations in which the DRM does certain types of decryption depends 
>>> upon the document.
>>> Perhaps this is more "closed by policy" (of the rights holder), but 
>>> the "closing bit or flag" is within the document.
>>> Peter
>>> On 10/19/2012 5:48 AM, Michael Pluke wrote:
>>>     Is there such a thing as non-Web non-embedded content that is
>>>     closed?
>>>     Can anyone think of any examples? We need to answer this
>>>     question urgently. In all the cases that we can think of it is
>>>     the device (i.e. the user agent) that is closed.
>>>     Best regards
>>>     Mike
>>> -- 
>>> <Mail Attachment.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>>> <Mail Attachment.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is 
>>> committed to developing practices and products that help protect the 
>>> environment
>>> -- 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Loïc Martínez-Normand
>>> DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática
>>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>>> Campus de Montegancedo
>>> 28660 Boadilla del Monte
>>> Madrid
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es <mailto:loic@fi.upm.es>
>>> tfno: +34 91 336 74 11
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> -- 
>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle 
>> is committed to developing practices and products that help protect 
>> the environment

Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 23:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:47 UTC