- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:32:15 -0700
- To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <520E621F.3020808@oracle.com>
Hi gang, Our public comment period ended yesterday, and we received only one comment <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2013Aug/thread.html> (see Mary Jo's summary of that one public comment from Duff Johnson <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2013Aug/0000.html> below). Gregg has an initial set of proposed responses that should be loaded into our comment response system shortly, which we will then survey. Some of Duff's comments propose edits to our document which seem like good ideas - that will also be surveyed. I expect the survey will go out early next week. What I'd like to do is schedule a meeting late next week to review that anticipated survey, and finalize our work on WCAG2ICT so that it can then go to WCAG WG for their August 27th meeting (and so we can hopefully publish our "version 1.0 Note" the first week of September. To that end, I've put together a Doodle survey of possible meeting times. Note: I am NOT proposing our usual meeting time, as I already know that Mike Pluke cannot attend then. The proposed times are all known to work for both Mike and me; hopefully at least one of them will also work for a majority of interested members of this TF. Please find & fill out the survey at: http://doodle.com/ausxmkz6yu5r3cgf Regards, Peter On 8/13/2013 1:35 PM, Mary Jo Mueller wrote: > > Hi all, > I wanted to draw your attention the single set of comments > received so far on the WCAG2ICT public draft. These are from Duff > Johnson who commented on our first draft as well. In addition to some > editorial comments, his main issues were: > > * Intro section: WCAG2ICT doesn't reference any of the ISO standards > where we say: "Authors and developers are encouraged to seek > relevant advice about current best practices…" I thought we had > answered a similar question from either him or someone else on the > first draft on this very topic. > * Intro section: Should mention other web-specific assumptions in > WCAG 2.0 other than simply the presence of a user agent in all of > its forms. > * 2.4 Set of documents definition: He finds the definition confusing > and gave examples where he can't tell if it applies. > * 2.5 Set of software: Similar confusion over this definition > * 5.0 Comments on Conformance: Suggested edits to the contents of > this section to be more clear and concise and has some issues with > list items 2 (is it necessary?) as well as 3 & 4 (where the > examples could be made less web-centric). > * General comment on remainder of the document: Concerned that our > approach doesn't provide enough information to help a government > agency to craft policies that cover all types of ICT and implement > a WCAG 2.0-based policy using the guidance in our document. > > > Best regards, > > Mary Jo Mueller > IBM Research ► Human Ability & Accessibility Center > 11501 Burnet Road, Bldg. 904 Office 5D017, Austin, Texas 78758 > 512-286-9698 T/L 363-9698 _ > __maryjom@us.ibm.com_ <mailto:hnielsen@us.ibm.com> > > _www.ibm.com/able_ and _w3.ibm.com/able__ > __IBM Accessibility_ <http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility> on > Facebook ▼ _IBMAccess_ <http://twitter.com/IBMAccess> on Twitter ▼ > _IBM Accessibility_ <http://www.linkedin.com/e/vgh/2419815/> on LinkedIn/ > “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and > become more, you are a leader.” ~ John Quincy Adams/ > > Inactive hide details for Peter Korn ---07/07/2013 08:48:11 PM---Hi > gang, I'm back home from my vacation, and I'm trying to makPeter Korn > ---07/07/2013 08:48:11 PM---Hi gang, I'm back home from my vacation, > and I'm trying to make sense of - by my > > From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> > To: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>, > Date: 07/07/2013 08:48 PM > Subject: Starting a new thread - re: Note 3 for definition of "document" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Hi gang, > > I'm back home from my vacation, and I'm trying to make sense of - by > my count - 15 distinct proposals for how to phrase Note 3! I find that > understanding them all by going through the e-mails for them all > nearly impossible, so I've tried to capture them all, in chronological > order (as they appeared in my inbox) at the bottom of our existing > wiki page _New Note 3 for definition of "document"_ > <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/new-note-for-definition-of-document>. > > I believe there are 4 "latest" proposals on the table. In > chronological order, they are (grossly paraphrased): > > * v7 from Peter Korn: a marrying of Mike's earlier proposal with > text that I thought David liked > * v8 from David MacDonald: edit to Peter's v7 that satisfies him > * v13 from Mike Pluke: drops "database" from the set of examples, > and follow's Gregg's approach with the conditional "because those > files are part of software... they are covered by WCAG2ICT" > * v14 from Gregg Vanderheiden (which is chronologically earlier, but > I suspect due to e-mail crossing may be "later" than Mike's): > drops "database" from the set of examples (like Mike's) and also > rewrites the first sentence to add in "software creator" > authorship; keeps the same second sentence "because those files > are part of software" as above. > > > I suggest that all further edits occur on this wiki page, with a note > as to which earlier variant they are an edit of, and how they are an > edit (visual change tracking of some sort). I think that may help us > all comprehend what each is proposing. > > > With that out of the way, here are my thoughts: > > 1. For somewhat obvious reasons, I'm not thrilled with dropping > "database" from the examples. They are a very important file > type, and I believe they will too easily be confused by folks as > being documents. I want to see "databases" included in the list > of examples. > > 2. From variant 9 onward (last ~36 hours of proposals from Gregg & > Mike), the second sentence introduces a conditional, and all > variants of this conditional appear to be some iteration of: > "Because those files are just part of the software...'sensory > experience to be communicated to the user' from such files... is > covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software". I > think doing this as a conditional is a mistake. It doesn't matter > who created those files (a concept Gregg's variant 14 > introduces). It doesn't matter if embedded in those files (e.g. > embedded in a database) is a document. All that matters is that > 'sensory experience to be communicated to the user' in such files > is clearly covered by WCAG2ICT, based on what it is when the user > interacts with it. If that 'sensory experience to be communicated > to the user' is expressed solely in the software UI, it is covered > by the software aspect of WCAG2ICT. If instead that 'sensory > experience to be communicated to the user' in such files is an > embedded document that gets extracted from such a file, upon > extraction it is a document and is covered by the document aspect > of WCAG2ICT (it was also a document when it was inserted into that > file). Therefore I think the conditional is a mistake and we > shouldn't have that in our text. > > 3. Gregg's variant 14 further limits the examples of the first > sentence based on "software creator intent", which adds a lot of > ambiguity to the note (how do we discern that these files "are > intended to only server as part of software"? - ask the author > about this for each and every file that accompanies some > software?). I think this is a big mistake and we should avoid > that approach. > > > > I have just added variant #15 to the wiki page. It starts with the > "variant 7/8" first sentence, listing the set of example files without > any conditionals or "software creator intent", and it includes > databases. I marry this in the second sentence with the Mike/Gregg > latest variant that the "information and sensory experience to be > communicated to the user" from such files, is just another part of the > content that occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any > other parts of the software/. /Finally I add a new sentence of my own > designed to directly address David's concerns: IN RARE CASES, THE > RETRIEVED CONTENT IS AN EMBEDDED DOCUMENT, AND SHOULD THAT OCCUR, IT > BECOMES A DOCUMENT ONCE EXTRACTED. > > This new sentence not only covers the database case, but also the > virtual machine hard drive file, etc. It covers "user-generated" > content as well as "software creator content" (and covers this no > matter what the "intent" of the author of the content was). > > Here is the fully proposal/variant #15: > > > (New) Note 3: Software configuration and storage files such as > databases and virus definitions, as well as computer instruction > files such as source code, batch/script files, and firmware, are > examples of files that function as part of software and thus are > not examples of documents. If and where software retrieves > "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the > user" from such files, is just another part of the content that > occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts > of the software. IN RARE CASES, THE RETRIEVED CONTENT IS AN > EMBEDDED DOCUMENT, AND SHOULD THAT OCCUR, IT BECOMES A DOCUMENT > ONCE EXTRACTED. > > > > How does this work for everyone? I would very much appreciate it if > responders would do two things: > > 1. Append any new variants you propose to the bottom of _New Note > 3 for definition of "document"_ > <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/new-note-for-definition-of-document>, > noting who you are, what variant your new proposal is derived > from, and how it is different. > 2. Offer in e-mail your critique of my proposal #15 (if you "can't > live with it"), so I can understand why you reject it and what > your counter-proposal is trying to achieve relative to what I > proposed. I hope I managed to do that in this e-mail... > > > Regards, > > > Peter > > -- > _ > _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 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 17:32:51 UTC