Re: Key Terms, AND dropping Non-embedded,

I too am traveling and am following in a fairly loose way... I am more attracted to Non-web content than "content file"... I've also run it by a non-techie and they felt the same way... unless there is some technical reason why we can't "non-web" I'd go with that...

Cheers
David MacDonald 
From my iPad 

On 2012-10-26, at 3:40 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> Whilst this issue has been up, I've been travelling so haven't been able to read all of the detail. However I need to make an M376 final decision on this issue before the end of this weekend!
> 
> I've given it some initial thought and come to the conclusion that there may be a very simple fix! If we take the identically defined non-embedded content and rename it "content file", we may have a fix. For what was non-Web non-embedded content we can now write language like "for content in a content file" where WCAG says "for content in a Web page". In our draft this would be placed in a non-Web section of the document, so it would be unnecessary to say "non-Web" everywhere. What would be interesting is that such language also works if it accidentally gets used in a Web context, as a Web page is a "content file" that contains Web content rather than non-Web content.
> 
> Another reassuring soon-off of this language is that it is easy to say that Acrobat is a user agent for a "content file" of type pdf.
> 
> Could we possibly fast track this proposal into today's agenda? This would give a possibility for it to be commented on before it (may) get implemented in M376.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Mike
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Hoffman, Allen [Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV]
> Received: Friday, 26 Oct 2012, 13:14
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden [gv@trace.wisc.edu]; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force [public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org]
> Subject: RE: Key Terms, AND dropping Non-embedded,
> 
> I like non-Web much better, even if it is less precise technically.  It reads better to me.
>  
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 5:43 AM
> To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
> Subject: Key Terms, AND dropping Non-embedded,
>  
> Per my action item to work on KEY TERMS section - here is the result
>  
>  
> NOTE: The access board asked us to solve our problems WITHOUT using the term "non-embedded content"  
> They don't want to use that term -- for all the same reasons we don't..  
>  
> so I took a crack at doing this WITHOUT the term -- using "non-web content" instead
>  
>  
>  
> FIRST 
> -- here are the Key Terms using this new approach 
>  
> KEY TERMS
> here is a draft of the Key Terms section that reflects the WCAG WG desire to not use 'non-embedded content"
> It is located at  
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfi41a03eubpdn2/Key%20Terms%20for%20Intro.doc
>  
>  
>  
> SECOND 
>  - to see what it would look like to use "non-web content" instead of "non-embedded content" 
>  
> REMOVING NON-EMBEDDED
> I created a spread sheet showing the new terms all in place
> see column "C" in the spreadsheet at 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/jug13pfds6wwycm/Removing%20Non-Embedded.xlsx
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 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
>