Re: Iterative improvements?

Hi Mike,

I like it. And user agents are definitely software.

it works well with the rest as well.

Here it is with the notes -- which makes It even easier to see how that suggestion is clearer.


I also noted that there was still one remaining "stand alone content" phrase -- (which may raise the question about what that is -- when in fact it is just non-embeded software)  -- so I changed it 
FROM 
	"Content that exists as a stand-alone entity requires a user agent "
TO
			Content that [is not embedded in software requires a (software)] user agent   

And the second paragraph didn’t match the first one very well after we edited the first (it said 'content can also be embedded' after we just said that in the first paragraph)  - so I just combined the first two sentences. 
FROM 
Content can also be embedded in software.  Some examples of embedded content include
TO
	    Some examples of [content embedded in software] include


so here it is with your fix -- and the two other editorial edits.   (I also cleaned up all the other edits from #2 so it is easy to read. 

It looks like this.

Even editorial we usually run past the group.  But perhaps we can just ask if the EDITS changed anything or not.   That makes it easy and a simple yes-no question. I am not wedded to either edit but they seem to make it read better and not introduce "stand-alone" which we then need to define. 

    PS here is a link to the page with version #2 in case someone wants to see it. 
https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/definitions-from-glossary/d---content-web-content?pli=1

Proposal #3  - A CLEAN UP OF #2 with 3 editorial edits  =====================

<this is exactly the same as #2 except for the text in square brackets - and colored in red>

Content 
Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of [software], including any structure, presentation, and interaction.  

NOTE: Content may be non-embedded (like a document or movie file) or embedded in software. Content that [is not embedded in software requires a (software)] user agent in order for it to be presented to users. Some examples of this kind of content are documents that have an associated document reader/editor, media files that are played in a media player, etc. See also “user agent”.

Some examples of [content embedded in software] include the controls and text displayed in a menu bar of a graphical UI application, images that appear in a toolbar, prompts spoken in an auditory UI, other user interaction controls, and other text, graphics or material that is not loaded from outside the software. In these cases, the content is “embedded” within the software user interface.

NOTE2: Content is assumed to be non-embedded content if not labelled as embedded content

Non-embedded Content  (new definition for our work)
Content that is not embedded in software and that does not include its own user agent

Note: Non-embedded content may be web or non-web content. Electronic documents and a movie file (or files if they are a package) are examples of non-embedded content.

User Agent  (derived from WCAG 2.0 by removing the word “web”)
any software that retrieves and presents non-embedded content for users
NOTE 1: User agents always retrieve non-embedded content from outside the software, including loading content from local storage. 
NOTE 2: User agents may contain “embedded” content - just as as all software can contain “embedded” content - but to be a “user agent” the software must specifically present non-embedded content to the user.  A calculator application that doesn’t retrieve the calculations from outside the software isn’t a user agent, it is simply software with a user interface.

Include this in the introduction section when discussing content and user agent.
What differentiates non-embedded content from software is that non-embedded content needs a user agent (e.g. browser or player) in order to be viewed and/or interacted with.  This user agent assumes some of the responsibility for making the non-embedded content accessible.  There is a grey area where non-embedded content may blur into software.  If there is any doubt, then treating the subject material as software

 







On Sep 23, 2012, at 7:13 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> During that last WCAG2ICT call we agreed (re-confirmed) a definition of content as:
>  
> “Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of ICT, including any structure, presentation, and interaction.  (plus notes)”
>  
> This definition with “by means of ICT” originated from the M376 draft standard.
>  
> I now realise that this definition does not differentiate between content communicated by hardware (e.g. labels on physical controls) and non-embedded content (e.g. electronic documents) and software. As hardware is out of scope of WCAG2ICT this is not a major problem – but hardware is within the scope of M376 and Section 508.
>  
> I propose that we in WCAG2ICT use the replacement text:
>  
> “Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of software, including any structure, presentation, and interaction.  (plus notes)”
>  
> This should work for all content, embedded or not. Embedded content is, by definition, in software and must therefore be communicated by means of software. Non-embedded software needs a user agent to do the communicating to users. But WCAG clearly states that a user agent is software (did we really think it was something else!), so I think that substituting “software” for “ICT” works for all electronic content and avoids any confusion with content communicated by hardware.
>  
> Hopefully this small but important change is non-controversial. Do we need to survey?
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mike
>