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: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:01:13 +0000
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>, Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>
CC: Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9F7B0040F7A7C4428E160959229DE9F3068D5D3F@D2ASEPRSH127.DSA.DHS>
I agree with all Peter's points here.
If this just becomes trivial to meet but is not really procedurally and/or culturally normative to just say this makes little sense to apply in this context, then as long as we clearly state these conditions I can live with that.

From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:16 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Loïc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: examples of sets of documents


Comments in-line below:
On 9/10/2012 9:51 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Peter, Loic,

You were having trouble seeing how these could meet the SC

1) these are on the web so the question is would they meet WCAG --  And the answer is yes.  Browsing  and searching.

PK: Neither browsing nor searching work JUST FROM THE TWO (pairs of) URLs YOU DISTRIBUTED TO US.  They might be on a website with either a search function and the ability to browse, but we didn't see that.  Therefore, given what we had (e.g. a "web site" consisting of only two URLs), I still maintain that they as such didn't meet WCAG.

2) if they were NOT on the web - the question isn't whether they DO or not but whether they easily could or not.

PK: I'm sorry, I misunderstood your reply.

2a) another question (ala Alan) is whether they could meet the SC  WITHOUT having to open them up and re-edit them.

The answer to  (2) and (2a) is yes for both.

Walking this through.....

Assuming you are distributing these in some fashion besides the web.

  *   If on the web then use WCAG directly.
  *   If a person downloads them from the web then -- all bets are off.  WCAG doesn't cover that we we don't either.  It was on the web and met WCAG.  If the user choses to pull it into another environment -- then the author is not responsible any more than if they broke them apart or printed them as image documents to their drive or anything else.

So - back to assuming you are distributing them in some way other than the web.  You are distributing one of these sets on a flash drive or dvd or zipped and mailed to someone or  on a file servers or in some other non-web fashion.

Since you are doing so, you would, should, (or at any rate - easily can), give them a meaningful file name before you distribute them.

This will allow you to meet SC 2.4.2. Page Title

PK: Note: that shouldn't be the ONLY way to meet SC 2.4.2.

It also give you (or rather, you give the user) two simple methods which would meet SC 2.4.5.

1) the user can browse to them in the Finder or Windows Explorer.
2) the user can use the search function in the Finder or Windows Explorer.

Both techniques are ways the user can use to find the documents.

PK: I still don't follow.  Let us say they have meaningful filenames, but neither document refers to the other.  Are you saying that, given a "modern" desktop OS that allows searching by filename and browsing contents of disks/directories, that SC 2.4.5 should essentially automatically be met?

The directory method (#1 above) is a direct parallel with technique G63 "providing a site map" since the directory provides a listing of all of the parts of the set.

PK: For this to be used by folks in meeting SC 2.4.5, I believe we need a NOTE or other text to direct folks to the non-web equivalent of "providing a site map".

The search function (#2 above)  is a direct parallel with G161 "Providing a search function to help users find content."

PK: Ditto here - this should be made clear in our guidance for non-web ICT software if we are to expect folks to use it.

If the docs meets the other success criteria then these two approaches would work and would do it.
If the docs do not meet the other success criteria (e.g. they don't have meaningful titles when you pass them around to others, or are not text ) then they don't conform anyway.

So you can easily meet this success criterion without editing the document at all.
And if you want to keep the document number (if it has meaning) you can do that too.  (e.e.  "document name - 56013d01.pdf"

PK: Finally, making this essentially trivial to meet (meet SC 2.4.2 & exist on a modern desktop OS and you have automatically met SC 2.4.5) I think strips it of nearly all of its meaning and value.




On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es<mailto:loic@fi.upm.es>> wrote:

Dear all,

Thank you Gregg for providing these good examples of sets of documents, which I agree they are.

But I'm with Peter about conforming to 2.4.5 (multiple ways). I don't think that there two examples meet 2.4.5 either as web content or as a set of documents once downloaded in one computer. I don't think that the techniques defined for 2.4.5 are applied in those two examples.

Best regards,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:

Hi Gregg,

I'm afraid I don't see how these example documents meet 2.4.5 Multiple Ways - either using Proposal #9 at https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/2-operable/24-provide-ways-to-help-users-navigate-find-content-and-determine-where-they-are/245-multiple-ways or frankly just as web pages using WCAG 2.0.

In the Muse Test Suite example, the filenames are "MUSE_DTF4.1p_V07.pdf" and "MUSE_DTF4.2p_V05.pdf" (or perhaps "6BED1d01.pdf" and "57013d01.pdf" as that is what they get as temporary filenames when passed to my copy of Adobe Reader).  Neither of these are "Test Suite, Part 1: Test Objectives" or "Test Suite, Part 2: Test Methods" - so internal references to those filenames don't exist (so I don't see how that would be "one of the multiple ways").  This same situation arises with the Audacity example - the filesystem filenames don't match the document filenames ("Super-Fast Guide to Audio Editing" vs. "Audacity_Guide.pdf"   and "Editing Audio with Audacity (Part 2)" vs. "EditingAudioPart2.pdf").

Also, proposal #9 lacks the NOTE at the end of proposal #8, but even following that NOTE, since not all documents in both examples contain links to the other, the only "way" of the necessary at least 2 ways that I find is "searching the documents' contents").

So... while I think these are good examples of a "set of documents" - at least for purposes of our discussion - I don't see them as examples of documents that pass our contemplated tests for 2.4.5 (let alone passing WCAG 2.4.5 when viewing them as web pages).


On 9/8/2012 2:52 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
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

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

Loïc Martínez-Normand
DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo
28660 Boadilla del Monte
e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es<mailto:loic@fi.upm.es>
tfno: +34 91 336 74 11

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

(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

(image/gif attachment: image002.gif)

Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 12:01:50 UTC

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