Re: Iterative improvements?

Hi,

I can accept the proposed change. It is a fact that all digital
(electronic) content requires some software for rendering.

It was only in the "analog age" when we could have hardware-only players
(vinyl discs, VHS...).

Loïc

El lunes, 24 de septiembre de 2012, Hoffman, Allen escribió:

>  After re-reading this, e.g. “labels on ICT”, I agree that restricting to
> software seems sensible.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com');>]
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:13 PM
> *To:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org');>
> *Subject:* Iterative improvements?****
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>