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

Re: examples of sets of documents

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:04:01 -0700
Message-ID: <504FB551.1060601@oracle.com>
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>
Allen, Alex, gang,

I do think this is one of a small handful of SCs (or contexts for SCs) 
where we should go to WCAG and explore with them the idea of us saying 
we don't think some things apply.  And I think this is one (of perhaps 
some but not all of those same SCs) were we may have an alternative if 
WCAG doesn't agree with (some of us who feel) stating that some SCs (or 
contexts for SCs) don't apply.  The alternative here would be "this is 
trivial to achieve in some situations, e.g.: just be on a desktop 
environment & have good filenames).


Peter

On 9/11/2012 2:51 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>
> Fine with me if that is preferable to just accepting this doesn't 
> really have application in this context of meaning.
>
> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:36 PM
> *To:* Hoffman, Allen
> *Cc:* Gregg Vanderheiden; Loïc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden; 
> public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: examples of sets of documents
>
> 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 <mailto: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>
> OracleCorporate 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 <mailto: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
>

-- 
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 22:07:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 September 2012 22:07:58 GMT