- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:36:05 -0700
- To: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
- CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>, 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: <504FAEC5.1020209@oracle.com>
Allen, gang,
In addition to the two NOTEs that Gregg has proposed in this thread, why
not also make this really easy for folks - assuming it is so trivial to
meet in the desktop GUIs of today - by adding a third NOTE that makes
that abundantly clear. Let's not waste developers' (and procurers')
time & brainpower to walk through the various steps in order to conclude
that this is trivially / automatically met; let's spell that out clearly
(perhaps similarly to what we [tried to] did with AccessibleName for
top-level frame as a way to meet SC 2.4.2).
Peter
On 9/11/2012 5:01 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>
> 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
>
> Gregg,
>
> 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.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
> Gregg
>
> 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,
>
> Loïc
>
> 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).
>
>
> Peter
>
> 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.
>
> /Gregg/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com
> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gregg,
>
> 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...)...
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> 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.
>
> 2. 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.
>
> /Gregg/
>
> --
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 506 9522 <tel:+1%20650%20506%209522>
> OracleCorporate 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
>
> --
> <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
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 <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
>
--
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
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 e-mail addresses no longer function; be sure to use:
peter.korn@oracle.com to reach me
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 21:39:00 UTC