- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:15:55 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>
- CC: 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: <504ED71B.8090701@oracle.com>
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>
>>>> Oracle Corporate 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
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 06:18:50 UTC