Re: examples of sets of documents

Gregg,

I really question this language/application for software.

On my home system, I use an application to copy the images from the SD 
card removed from my camera and inserted into my computer to the 
system's hard drive).  It's name is "MCULauncher.exe".  That isn't very 
descriptive.  But if it's name were the same text that appears in the 
shortcut - "Canon ZoomBrowser EX Memory Card Utility" - I'm still not so 
sure it would help me.  Because the name isn't "App that transfers 
images from the camera card".  And in order to find it, I need to 
traverse a VERY full directory tree in order to get to the directory 
that contains it: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Canon\ZoomBrowser EX MCU".  
Maybe I'd know to look in "C:\Program Files (x86)" (or maybe I'd just 
give up after not finding it in "C:\Program Files").  But would I think 
to look in Canon?  I might not remember that my camera is a Canon.  And 
why in the world would I think "ZoomBrowser EX MCU" is the right 
subdirectory to find what I'm looking for?  Just solving the issue for 
the leaf name in the tree doesn't help with any poor names in the 
structure leading to that tree - which may not be under the control of 
the software developer.

And... when would I actually go this route to find and launch an 
application?  On Windows (7 and the last few), I'd go to the Start menu 
and hope I found it there.  Not finding it immediately, I'd troll 
through "All Programs" hoping to either find a name that made sense to 
/*me*/, or a file group name into which I'd look.


Of course, the importance of having a good name to help find something 
is hugely impacted by how many things I have to look through - the "web 
site" equivalent of which an individual software author has NO control.

If you were to say instead "it only has to have a logical name to 
distinguish it from other things in the set as the set is distributed", 
then again, I don't see the value.  I don't run these apps from the 
install CD.  I install them once from the Install CD, and don't care 
what they are named when they are on the CD.


So... while software application filename is a pretty logical analog to 
document filename, I don't see how that substitution actually helps the 
people this SC is intended to help.


And if we don't have filename, but we still think the unit of thing 
being looked for is the software app... then we get to the place where 
every software app in a set needs to be linked to each other? If my 
"set" is a collection of related apps (e.g. Adobe Creative Suite, or a 
collection of UNIX command line apps to run on Windows), must they all 
"link" to eachother directly somehow to meet this? ('ls' must have a GUI 
from which I can also run 'rm' and 'diff' and ...???).


Peter

On 9/13/2012 3:46 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure why we are back on the topic of wanting to throw some SC 
> out.  Especially for this item.
>
> FOR DOCUMENTS
>
>   * It DOES apply.
>   * It is a cognitive access issue but that should not make it less
>     important.
>   * It IS easy to meet -- but so is adding alt text to a picture
>     (remember that we don't require that alt text be good).
>   * It is no more easy for ICT than for Web content (it is pretty easy
>     there too).
>   * If you DON'T do what is required then things will and do fail -
>     and things are then less accessible.
>   * We have text that works.
>
>
> People challenged that any sets existed and examples were supplied.
> The samples can all be made to meet the SC by just giving the files a 
> reasonable name when they are downloaded or created or sent out.  If 
> you don't, then you have to add links.  If you don't then you need to 
> do something else to create a second method (search is always a first 
> and will work on any document that meets the other success criteria )
>
> What am I missing?
>
> I think it is helpful to note that some of the reasons that it was 
> included in the WCAG 2.0, even though it was easy to meet, was to a) 
> bring attention to this issue of people with cognitive disabilities 
> having trouble navigating complex sites, b) to provide a place for 
> advisory techniques to live that addressed this general topic (things 
> that are important but can't be applied everywhere or in testable form 
> so they couldn’t qualify for required status, and c) to be sure that 
> the easy things were in fact done.
>
>
> NOW FOR SOFTWARE
>
> I suggest that we replace  "web page" with software product as we have 
> elsewhere.  That make sense because many web pages are web apps.  In 
> fact many software products are indeed now also available online as a 
> web app (at a single URL making them a "web page". )
>
> This would mean that any software applications (that are produced and 
> sold as a set - and not bundled) could meet this success criterion by 
> being given a meaning filename (which most - BUT NOT ALL - have).  OR 
> they can provide links to the other apps in the set from one of the 
> apps if for some reason they don't want the apps to have a 
> recognizable file name.
>
> NOTE: A "set" would have to meet all the same criteria we talked about 
> before for a set -- so bundling etc would not create a "set" (although 
> most bundled software have a readable name so would meet it anyway)
>
>
> I just added this to the Website.
>
> Does anyone have a real-world problem with this?    It is parallel 
> with WCAG interpretation and is easy to do, though not always done.   
> And it leaves an anchor point for others writing advisory techniques 
> about APP navigation by people with cognitive disabilities a good 
> place to put them for those interested in this real problem.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com 
> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> Gregg,
>>
>> We have been laboring under two critical constraints:
>>
>>  1. That we must find a way to make all SCs apply
>>  2. That we cannot - in our NON-NORMATIVE document - re-cast the
>>     criteria based on the purpose & the significantly different world
>>     of non-web ICT to make it better apply
>>
>> In this most thread we've been pushing against the first constraint.  
>> But several of us have also suggested that we need to question the 
>> second constraint (with WCAG WG).
>>
>>
>> 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