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

RE: examples of sets of documents

From: Hoffman, Allen <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:01:13 +0000
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9F7B0040F7A7C4428E160959229DE9F3068CD1EE@D2ASEPRSH126.DSA.DHS>
As long as they are listed, linked, or otherwise enumerated as a set somewhere I can live with that.  Otherwise I can't see how anyone would be able to tell if it was a set.  I'd really prefer they have actual links, but can live with enumeration somewhere somehow, e.g. readme file in set has file list, introduction identifies set in narrative, or some such.  Tables of content generally would meet this requirement for me.  I don't think I would include "anything" referenced in a set as that gets to the point of impossibility-just like when you scan a website, you restrict the scan to the domain name to be able to get a report that you can handle, restricting "set" to those documents enumerated in some way as part of the set, but not including any old reference.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 5:52 PM
To: Peter Korn
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: examples of sets of documents

Hi Peter,

            Currently they are web pages.  And the do meet WCAG as web pages.

            I can't comment on their meeting WCAG in other contexts since
                        a) the other context is not described
                        b) the WCAG2ICT hasn't said how WCAG would be applied to those other contexts.

Given the discussions we have been having in WCAG2ICT though -- I would see no problem in the documents meeting what the WCAG2ICT has been discussing, and doing so in most any context that I can think of  (e.g. saved from an email, on a server, in a folder together on a drive, of flash memory stick, etc.)  except if you split them up -- but we specifically exclude a set that has been broken up from being still considered a set -- so I guess they would pass that too.


On Sep 7, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:


Thanks for finding these examples!

Looking at the first set (Muse Test Suite), in your opinion should these pass or fail the SC?  In your reading of the draft SC language, do they pass or fail?  Any why?

Same questions for the second set (User Guide to Audio editing...)...


On 9/6/2012 11:29 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
here are two examples

  1.  Muse Test Suite, Part 1 Test Objectives (link<http://www.ist-muse.org/Deliverables/TF4/MUSE_DTF4.1p_V07.pdf>) & Part 2 Test Methods (link<http://www.ist-muse.org/Deliverables/TF4/MUSE_DTF4.2p_V05.pdf>).

     *   Published together on Jan 6, 2006. Labeled as a set in 1.1 Scope.

  1.  User Guide to Audio editing with Audacity, Part 1 (link<http://www.jtoolkit.com/audio/Audacity_Guide.pdf>) & Part 2 (link<http://www.jtoolkit.com/audio/EditingAudioPart2.pdf>).

     *   Published together in 2009 and labeled as a set in Part 2.


Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 506 9522<tel:+1%20650%20506%209522>
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Note: @sun.com<http://sun.com> e-mail addresses no longer function; be sure to use: peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com> to reach me
<green-for-email-sig_0.gif><http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 13:02:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:46 UTC