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

Re: Closed non-embedded content???

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:49:49 -0400
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Cc: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <C25198BE-C84F-455E-A3DF-C30D43E4143D@trace.wisc.edu>
It is subtle --but you have to lay the responsibility for access to closed functionality on the ENTITY that does the closing ---  the software author or the content author. 

If the CONTENT author chooses to use a DRM for which there are no accessible readers -- then they are closing the content - no matter what reader reads it.   They would be responsible for creating a presentation mode within the content that could meet the "closed functionality" rules or they would fail to meet the accessibility rules. 

If the CONTENT author chose a DRM for which there WERE accessible readers - then its contents would be closed but it would meet the SC through the features in the reader (the content is closed and the author met his responsibilities via having readers that provide access (presuming they meet the guidelines)     --  UNLESS the content author sets a flag that forbad the player from using those features.  Then the content would both be closed and the author would have closed out the player functionality that could have caused it to meet the 'closed functionality' features.   The author would then be responsible again for providing access in some other way. 

If the CONTENT author does not use DRM and there are accessible readers - but the software doesn’t allow AT access then it is the software's problem and the software needs to be accessible. 

'in short
if a player company wants to sell players to the gov (that meet access regs) - they need to be accessible players  (either work with AT or have built in access features).

if a content company wants to sell to the gov (and meet access regs) - they need to sell content that works with accessible players (either that work with AT or have built in)  AND they need to not set any bits that forbid the player from using its access features. 

The question is:
can players meet access regs if they honor the" do not provide access" flag
one answer - sure,  they allow access, it is the content that turns their 'do not provide access' feature
other answer - that is like putting cash on the windowsill and arresting someone for stealing it.  Why have the feature if you don't expect  it to get used and people to get shut out.    Also if the gov wants access they shouldn’t allow purchase of something that allows books to refuse to be accessed. 
THIS is a tough question

.

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

On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> I think that some people claim that it is the software that respects the DRM that is doing the closing, not the content itself? DRM is a very sensitive subject for those that apply it and those that are affected by it. There are with many very different interpretations of what DRM represents.
> 
> So it would be ideal to have an example of non-Web non-embedded content other than the contentious issue of DRM.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bailey, Bruce [mailto:Bailey@Access-Board.gov] 
> Sent: 22 October 2012 13:16
> To: Michael Pluke
> Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Closed non-embedded content???
> 
>> I fired a question to the list to see if there was an answer to the question - "Is there such a thing as closed non-Web non-embedded content?"
> 
> I feel like I am missing something.  Is not the previously offered example of DRM encumbered eBook file non-Web non-embedded content?
> 
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2012 05:52:01 UTC

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