- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:19:03 -0700
- To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
- CC: Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>, Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>, "kirsten@can-adapt.com" <kirsten@can-adapt.com>
- Message-ID: <51D5AE87.40703@oracle.com>
Mike, Your text (below) works for me. Thanks for the suggested edits. Peter On 7/4/2013 3:49 AM, Michael Pluke wrote: > > Dear all > > My proposal was trying to stick very closely to the basic definition > that a document is an "assembly of content". Our definition does not > say that a document is *exclusively* content, so it could legitimately > include things that are not content as well as content. However the > definition makes it clear that if it has *no content* then it is not a > document. So, if our definition is correct my proposal is a warning > and a clarification of what does and does not fit. > > However, there is an alternate approach that Loïc has taken in his > email (below). This picks up on another part of the definition. > However I have some slight concerns about how to interpret the words > "that is not part of software" (that is part of a definition). I fear > that this concept is open to interpretation with: > > -some arguing that this virus definition file is exclusively used by > the software as part of the way the software works -- therefore it is > "part of the software"; > > -whilst others will argue that the software application is one file > and the virus definitions are in another file -- therefore the virus > definitions are separate from the software and they are not "part of > the software". > > I think that Gregg has correctly addressed this ambiguity in his much > longer last attempt to solve our dilemma. He says that: > > -"But they function as, and would be evaluated as, part(s) of the > software and not as separate entities or as documents." > > I think that if we take Loïc's much simpler and shorter note and add > in Gregg's point we could end up with someone that effectively removes > or significantly reduces the ambiguity: > > *(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 we can accept "that function as" here instead of "are" we should be > OK. If not we might have to throw the spotlight on the word "are" in > our main definition -- and I'd rather not go there!! > > Best regards > > Mike > > *From:*Loïc Martínez Normand [mailto:loic@fi.upm.es] > *Sent:* 04 July 2013 11:07 > *To:* Gregg Vanderheiden > *Cc:* Peter Korn; David MacDonald; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org; Gregg > Vanderheiden; kirsten@can-adapt.com > *Subject:* Re: Recently discovered issue with WCAG2ICT definition of > "document" - suggesting a new note to clarify > > Dear all, > > What a discussion! I just went to be minutes after receiving the first > email... and bang! I woke up with a very long thread. > > I think that things are getting overcomplicated as the discussion has > progressed and I'm going to try to simplify. > > But first I need to go back to the origin of the discussion. We have > the definitions of "content" and "document": > > * *content* (non-web content): information and sensory experience to > be communicated to the user by means of software, including code > or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and > interactions. > * *document* (as used in WCAG2ICT): assembly of content, such as a > file, set of files, or streamed media that is not part of software > and that does not include its own user agent > > First, lets not forget that the definition of content includes the > code or markup that defines the structure, presentation and > interactions. That means that we can have a file written in markup > language that can be considered to be a document. > > Second, the important bit of the definition of document for this > discussion is that a document "is not part of software". I think that > the files that Peter has been talking about (configuration files, > virus definition files, internal databases) are in fact, part of > software and thus are not documents. > > So my proposal for the new (shorter) note is: > > *(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 are part of software and thus are **not examples of > documents. * > > What do you think? I don't think that we need to add text to explain > that it is the software who "contains" these files who need to be > considered, do we? > > Best regards, > > Loïc > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu > <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>> wrote: > > Wow -- this is getting long. > > I think I see another way around the problem. (see below ) > > First - what was the problem. > > - the problem comes from talking about a file that is "separate from > the software" (such as an update file or database) that is used by > the software and subsequently causes information not in the software > to be displayed. Is this a 'document?" > > - the concern was that if the software doesn't know of the contents of > the file in advance, then any new non-text content of the file that > gets presented to a user cannot be made accessible by the software. > nohow. So the file needs to follow the SC and itself provide the > alternate form of the non-text content just like any html file for > example. > > The language below (and previous versions) did not cover this -- and > said that the software was responsible and the file did not need to > follow the SC. This is a problem. > > HOWEVER - I think we can get where you want to be by talking about the > virus update etc as and UPDATE to the Software rather than a separate > piece of content or 'document'. > > Something like this: > > *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, that > are part of a software package, or an update to part of the > software package are not examples of documents. As with any > update, if they include new non-text information for presentation > to users, they would be expected to include accompanying alternate > text presentations if the software doesn't already have them or > the ability to create them. But they function as, and would be > evaluated as, part(s) of the software and not as separate entities > or as documents.* > > Does that address the problem - without creating a new one? > > /Gregg/ > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. > Director Trace R&D Center > Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering > and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison > > Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info > Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - > http://Raisingthefloor.org > and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net > > On Jul 4, 2013, at 12:56 AM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com > <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote: > > Gregg, David, > > I think where we are getting tripped up is around the common-sense > concept of what a document is, vs. files that could contain > information that in some fashion gets displayed to a user, at some > point, by software. > > I think about files used internally by some software to persist > the user interface (see the last example paragraph in SC 4.1.1 > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#ensure-compat-parses>: > "Examples of markup used internally for persistence of the > software user interface that are never exposed to assistive > technology include: XUL, GladeXML, and FXML. In these examples > assistive technology only interacts with the user interface of > generated software."). These files define a software program's > user interface - the contents of the menus and toolbars and dialog > boxes. But for the fact that they happen to exist as a separate > file on disk, they are simply part of the software program as > shipped, and we don't treat them as documents. If instead of > being encoded in ASCII/UNICODE, they were in binary form, nobody > would be the wiser that these files weren't executable programs. > *We don't think of these XML UI definition files as "documents" > for the purposes of WCAG2ICT.* We don't attempt to apply all of > the success criteria to them separately; *they are simply a part > of the software program and they are covered through the > evaluation the software program*. If there is something missing > in them needed for accessibility (e.g. ALT text for the icon in > the toolbar), that causes the software to fail a success > criterion, then the software simply fails the SC. > > Similarly, a virus definition file that had embedded within it the > names of known viruses and the names of places they appear - which > may get displayed by the user when a virus is found - is really > part of the anti-virus application (as periodically updated by the > vendor). If they were binary files that were delivered as > "software patches" we wouldn't think of them as documents. That > they happen to have filenames encoded in ASCII/UNICODE should make > no difference. As with the XUL/GladeXML/FXML example in the > paragraph above, they are simply a part of the software program > and they are covered through the evaluation of the software > program. If there is something missing in them, that causes the > software to fail a success criterion, then the software simply > fails the SC. It doesn't matter from which software file the > failure arises. > > Finally, if someone were to write a program (and defined the > accompanying database) that stored & retrieved documents, the fact > that the storage mechanism is in a database file (or collection of > files) is no different than if instead the "file" was a filesystem > on a disk drive. If you have ever run virtualization software > like VirtualBox, you may notice that the "hard drive" that gets > created for your virtual machine is in fact a file in the > filesystem of the underlying platform. That "hard drive" file > will contain any number of documents (and programs and so forth). > That doesn't make the hard drive file */itself /*a document > (anymore than a database into which someone has stored documents > thereby becomes itself a document). We don't apply WCAG2ICT's > success criteria to the VirtualBox hard drive file in the > underlying platform. > > > So... assuming we all agree with those three paragraphs above, the > question becomes how best to state this. > > Gregg - the approach you are advocating puts a constraint on the > types of files: they avoid being called "documents" only if they > "do not present information to users through a user agent" (this > is because of where you have placed the comma). But since we have > redefined content from what it was in WCAG - to remove the term > "user agent" from it - we have content being any "information and > sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of > software". So we have something that is circular. > > > Maybe I can get at this another way: by making clear that where > files that are simply part of software happen to contain > "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the > user", you don't consider those separate files to be documents, > but instead apply WCAG2ICT to that software (and the content > rendered by it, where ever it may have come from). See the new > 2nd sentence below: > > *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 > not examples of documents. **If and where software retrieves > "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the > user" from such files, those files contribute to content > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> that occurs > in software (and WCAG2ICT applies to that software > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_software>).* > > > David - in the case of your example of a database containing > documents... if the document is never available separately (e.g. > the software program that stores/retrieves/displays the document > from the database is the only way a user can ever read & interact > with the document), then I claim it isn't a document. If this > were a closed system (e.g. a kiosk) displaying canned information > stored entirely inside it (not retrieved over the web), we would > only evaluate it as software (with closed functionality). We > wouldn't attempt to say that the kiosk's information was contained > one or more documents that can be separately evaluated - that > information is opaque to us. > > Now, if/when a document is retrieved from a database and emitted > into a stand-alone form that can separately be retrieved and > presented by a user agent (e.g. I've obtained a Word file from > Microsoft Sharepoint and stored a snapshot of it on my local hard > drive), then that */becomes /*a document and it can be separately > evaluated as such. But the datastore maintained by Microsoft > Sharepoint (containing any number of documents and document > revisions, in any number of snapshots and states), isn't itself a > document. It is a file that is internal to the application. > > > Peter > > On 7/3/2013 6:40 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:22 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com > <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote: > > > > Gregg, > > Your suggestion leads to circular reasoning. > > The problem with this route is then any time we have some > information in some file somewhere, and that information is > the source in some fashion of "content", the software that > presents it becomes a user agent? And the file becomes a > document? > > If the information is displayed to users -- it IS content. > and if the database contains the text and images to display > -- then it HAS to contain the alternate text for the images. > (The app displaying the data can't add alt text itself - it > doesn't know what they data is til display time) > > So this is exactly what we WANT it to say. > > > > > So if my virus definition file contains the names of viruses, > and those names are displayed in my anti-virus program, the > anti-virus program is now a user agent? And the virus > definition file is now a document? > > Absolutely. And if the virus definition files used icons > instead of text to 'name' the viruses - the virus definition > file would have to have alt text for those icons. > > And if there is any other non-text information to be displayed > to the user-- the virus definition file would need to have the > text alternative so the application could provide that text as > well in a programmatically determinable way. > > > > > > That makes no sense. > > Make sense now? > > G > > > > > > Peter > > On 7/3/2013 6:18 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > > how about instead of raw - we pick up on the key distinction. > > *(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, **that do not > present information to users through a user > agent** are not examples of documents. Such files are > not "information and sensory experience to be > communicated to the user" and therefore are not > considered content* > > If a database IS just data that a user agent displays- > then it WOULD be covered. One could argue that an html > file is sourcecode for the page rendering. Certainly the > javascript is. > > /Gregg/ > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. > Director Trace R&D Center > Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering > and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison > > Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - > http://Cloud4all.info <http://cloud4all.info/> > Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - > http://Raisingthefloor.org <http://raisingthefloor.org/> > and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - > http://GPII.net <http://gpii.net/> > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Peter Korn > <peter.korn@oracle.com <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote: > > > > David, > > What makes a file "raw"? I view the situation of a > program retrieving data from somewhere and presenting it > within it's user interface as "content" that is displayed > in software. Said content must be accessible. Said > content could come from a database file. Said content > could be a persisted user interface (cf. SC 4.1.1 > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#ensure-compat-parses>). And > just like the 4.1.1 case (addressing your PS in the > following e-mail), there could be information in that file > that helps with accessibility (e.g. the database contains > images and also ALT text for those images). > > But we aren't loosing anything here - whatever is in the > database that winds up being presented in a user interface > is content that must be accessible. If it isn't > accessible when presented in software, WCAG2ICT catches it. > > But it doesn't make sense to try to apply all of WCAG to a > database file as if it was a web page or a word processing > file. That's the point here. > > > Peter > > On 7/3/2013 5:43 PM, David MacDonald wrote: > > Just one nit... > > Can we add the word "raw" or some other word to make > it clearer... > > ** > > *... raw storage files such as databases* > > I'm a little nervous it might make the pendulum swing > the other way and some administrators might think it's > not a document if a user agent serving up content from > a database on the backend... > > Cheers > > David MacDonald > > ** > > *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* > > /Adapting the web to *all* users/ > > /Including those with disabilities/ > > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> > > *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] > *Sent:* July-03-13 6:59 PM > *To:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> Force > *Subject:* Recently discovered issue with WCAG2ICT > definition of "document" - suggesting a new note to > clarify > > Hi gang, > > As part of a wider review of WCAG2ICT (asking > colleagues who aren't on the Task Force to look at > it), I just discovered an issue with the definition of > "document > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_document>". > The issue is that readers will see the term "document" > and think "file", and therefore try to apply WCAG > requirements to all manner of files (virus definition > files and programming files were two specific concerns > that came up from colleagues). > > While our definition of "document" is based on the > term "content > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content>" > (which is scoped to "information and sensory > experience to be communicated to the user"), I fear > this fact is too easily missed. Therefore, I propose > that we add an additional Note to clarify this: > > Note: 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 not examples of documents. > Such files are not "information and sensory experience > to be communicated to the user" and therefore are not > considered content. > > I have added that note in context, as proposed "(New) > Note 3" in red text as part of the full definition of > document, below: > > *document (as used in WCAG2ICT)* > > assembly of content > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content>, > such as a file, set of files, or streamed media > that is not part of software and that does not > include its own user agent > > *Note 1:***A documents always requires a user > agent to present its content to the user. > > *Note 2:***Letters, spreadsheets, emails, books, > pictures, presentations, and movies are examples > of documents. > > *(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 not > examples of documents. Such files are not > "information and sensory experience to be > communicated to the user" and therefore are not > considered content.* > > *Note 34:***Anything that can present its own > content without involving a user agent, such as a > self playing book, is not a document but is software. > > *Note 45:***A single document may be composed of > multiple files such as the video content, closed > caption text, etc. This fact is not usually > apparent to the end-user consuming the document / > content. This is similar to how a single web page > can be composed of content from multiple URIs > (e.g. the page text, images, the JavaScript, a CSS > file etc.). > > > > I would like to propose this edit as part of the WCAG > WG review next Tuesday July 9th, so it can get into > the 3rd/final public draft that we publish later in July. > > Any thoughts/edits before I do this as part of my WCAG > WG "Ultimate? Survey" > <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ultimate/> response? > > > Peter > > -- > <Mail Attachment.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/> > Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal > Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 > <Mail Attachment.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 94064 > <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 94064 > <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
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 17:22:19 UTC