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

RE: Key Terms, AND dropping Non-embedded,

From: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:40:57 -0400
To: "gv@trace.wisc.edu" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>, "Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
Message-ID: <5735ED0D92A3E6469F161EB41E7C28A81D60A4D4E2@MAILR001.mail.lan>
Whilst this issue has been up, I've been travelling so haven't been able to read all of the detail. However I need to make an M376 final decision on this issue before the end of this weekend!

I've given it some initial thought and come to the conclusion that there may be a very simple fix! If we take the identically defined non-embedded content and rename it "content file", we may have a fix. For what was non-Web non-embedded content we can now write language like "for content in a content file" where WCAG says "for content in a Web page". In our draft this would be placed in a non-Web section of the document, so it would be unnecessary to say "non-Web" everywhere. What would be interesting is that such language also works if it accidentally gets used in a Web context, as a Web page is a "content file" that contains Web content rather than non-Web content.

Another reassuring soon-off of this language is that it is easy to say that Acrobat is a user agent for a "content file" of type pdf.

Could we possibly fast track this proposal into today's agenda? This would give a possibility for it to be commented on before it (may) get implemented in M376.

Best regards

Mike

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Hoffman, Allen [Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV]
Received: Friday, 26 Oct 2012, 13:14
To: Gregg Vanderheiden [gv@trace.wisc.edu]; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force [public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org]
Subject: RE: Key Terms, AND dropping Non-embedded,

I like non-Web much better, even if it is less precise technically.  It reads better to me.


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 5:43 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
Subject: Key Terms, AND dropping Non-embedded,

Per my action item to work on KEY TERMS section - here is the result


NOTE: The access board asked us to solve our problems WITHOUT using the term "non-embedded content"
They don't want to use that term -- for all the same reasons we don't..

so I took a crack at doing this WITHOUT the term -- using "non-web content" instead



FIRST
-- here are the Key Terms using this new approach

KEY TERMS
here is a draft of the Key Terms section that reflects the WCAG WG desire to not use 'non-embedded content"
It is located at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfi41a03eubpdn2/Key%20Terms%20for%20Intro.doc



SECOND
 - to see what it would look like to use "non-web content" instead of "non-embedded content"

REMOVING NON-EMBEDDED
I created a spread sheet showing the new terms all in place
see column "C" in the spreadsheet at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jug13pfds6wwycm/Removing%20Non-Embedded.xlsx










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
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 13:41:29 UTC

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