- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:36:05 -0700
- 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>
- Message-ID: <504FAEC5.1020209@oracle.com>
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 > *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> 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 21:39:00 UTC