- From: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:14:28 -0500
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFB6310753.37DBC930-ON86257BC7.004E02A5-86257BC7.004E3A9A@us.ibm.com>
Here's the link to the wcag2ict comments and a link to Duff's comments on
the latest draft.
Best regards,
Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Research ► Human Ability & Accessibility Center
11501 Burnet Road, Bldg. 904 Office 5D017, Austin, Texas 78758
512-286-9698 T/L 363-9698
maryjom@us.ibm.com
www.ibm.com/able and w3.ibm.com/able
IBM Accessibility on Facebook ▼ IBMAccess on Twitter ▼ IBM Accessibility on
LinkedIn
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader.” ~ John Quincy Adams
From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Mary Jo Mueller/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Date: 08/13/2013 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: FYI, comments received on WCAG2ICT
Where do you see the comments? I didn’t see them in the comment register
thx
Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net
On Aug 13, 2013, at 3:35 PM, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to draw your attention the single set of comments
received so far on the WCAG2ICT public draft. These are from Duff
Johnson who commented on our first draft as well. In addition to some
editorial comments, his main issues were:
Intro section: WCAG2ICT doesn't reference any of the ISO
standards where we say: "Authors and developers are encouraged
to seek relevant advice about current best practices…" I
thought we had answered a similar question from either him or
someone else on the first draft on this very topic.
Intro section: Should mention other web-specific assumptions in
WCAG 2.0 other than simply the presence of a user agent in all
of its forms.
2.4 Set of documents definition: He finds the definition
confusing and gave examples where he can't tell if it applies.
2.5 Set of software: Similar confusion over this definition
5.0 Comments on Conformance: Suggested edits to the contents of
this section to be more clear and concise and has some issues
with list items 2 (is it necessary?) as well as 3 & 4 (where
the examples could be made less web-centric).
General comment on remainder of the document: Concerned that
our approach doesn't provide enough information to help a
government agency to craft policies that cover all types of ICT
and implement a WCAG 2.0-based policy using the guidance in our
document.
Best regards,
Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Research ► Human Ability & Accessibility Center
11501 Burnet Road, Bldg. 904 Office 5D017, Austin, Texas 78758
512-286-9698 T/L 363-9698
maryjom@us.ibm.com
www.ibm.com/able and w3.ibm.com/able
IBM Accessibility on Facebook ▼ IBMAccess on Twitter ▼ IBM
Accessibility on LinkedIn
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more
and become more, you are a leader.” ~ John Quincy Adams
<graycol.gif>Peter Korn ---07/07/2013 08:48:11 PM---Hi gang, I'm back
home from my vacation, and I'm trying to make sense of - by my
From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
To: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>,
Date: 07/07/2013 08:48 PM
Subject: Starting a new thread - re: Note 3 for definition of
"document"
Hi gang,
I'm back home from my vacation, and I'm trying to make sense of - by
my count - 15 distinct proposals for how to phrase Note 3! I find
that understanding them all by going through the e-mails for them all
nearly impossible, so I've tried to capture them all, in
chronological order (as they appeared in my inbox) at the bottom of
our existing wiki page New Note 3 for definition of "document".
I believe there are 4 "latest" proposals on the table. In
chronological order, they are (grossly paraphrased):
v7 from Peter Korn: a marrying of Mike's earlier proposal with
text that I thought David liked
v8 from David MacDonald: edit to Peter's v7 that satisfies him
v13 from Mike Pluke: drops "database" from the set of examples,
and follow's Gregg's approach with the conditional "because
those files are part of software... they are covered by
WCAG2ICT"
v14 from Gregg Vanderheiden (which is chronologically earlier,
but I suspect due to e-mail crossing may be "later" than
Mike's): drops "database" from the set of examples (like
Mike's) and also rewrites the first sentence to add in
"software creator" authorship; keeps the same second sentence
"because those files are part of software" as above.
I suggest that all further edits occur on this wiki page, with a note
as to which earlier variant they are an edit of, and how they are an
edit (visual change tracking of some sort). I think that may help us
all comprehend what each is proposing.
With that out of the way, here are my thoughts:
1. For somewhat obvious reasons, I'm not thrilled with dropping
"database" from the examples. They are a very important file
type, and I believe they will too easily be confused by folks
as being documents. I want to see "databases" included in the
list of examples.
2. From variant 9 onward (last ~36 hours of proposals from
Gregg & Mike), the second sentence introduces a conditional,
and all variants of this conditional appear to be some
iteration of: "Because those files are just part of the
software...'sensory experience to be communicated to the user'
from such files... is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts
of the software". I think doing this as a conditional is a
mistake. It doesn't matter who created those files (a concept
Gregg's variant 14 introduces). It doesn't matter if embedded
in those files (e.g. embedded in a database) is a document.
All that matters is that 'sensory experience to be communicated
to the user' in such files is clearly covered by WCAG2ICT,
based on what it is when the user interacts with it. If that
'sensory experience to be communicated to the user' is
expressed solely in the software UI, it is covered by the
software aspect of WCAG2ICT. If instead that 'sensory
experience to be communicated to the user' in such files is an
embedded document that gets extracted from such a file, upon
extraction it is a document and is covered by the document
aspect of WCAG2ICT (it was also a document when it was inserted
into that file). Therefore I think the conditional is a
mistake and we shouldn't have that in our text.
3. Gregg's variant 14 further limits the examples of the first
sentence based on "software creator intent", which adds a lot
of ambiguity to the note (how do we discern that these files
"are intended to only server as part of software"? - ask the
author about this for each and every file that accompanies some
software?). I think this is a big mistake and we should avoid
that approach.
I have just added variant #15 to the wiki page. It starts with the
"variant 7/8" first sentence, listing the set of example files
without any conditionals or "software creator intent", and it
includes databases. I marry this in the second sentence with the
Mike/Gregg latest variant that the "information and sensory
experience to be communicated to the user" from such files, is just
another part of the content that occurs in software and is covered by
WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software. Finally I add a new
sentence of my own designed to directly address David's concerns: IN
RARE CASES, THE RETRIEVED CONTENT IS AN EMBEDDED DOCUMENT, AND SHOULD
THAT OCCUR, IT BECOMES A DOCUMENT ONCE EXTRACTED.
This new sentence not only covers the database case, but also the
virtual machine hard drive file, etc. It covers "user-generated"
content as well as "software creator content" (and covers this no
matter what the "intent" of the author of the content was).
Here is the fully proposal/variant #15:
(New) Note 3: Software configuration and storage files such as
databases and virus definitions, as well as computer
instruction files such as source code, batch/script files, and
firmware, are examples of files that function as part of
software and thus are not examples of documents. If and where
software retrieves "information and sensory experience to be
communicated to the user" from such files, is just another part
of the content that occurs in software and is covered by
WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software. IN RARE CASES,
THE RETRIEVED CONTENT IS AN EMBEDDED DOCUMENT, AND SHOULD THAT
OCCUR, IT BECOMES A DOCUMENT ONCE EXTRACTED.
How does this work for everyone? I would very much appreciate it if
responders would do two things:
1. Append any new variants you propose to the bottom of New
Note 3 for definition of "document", noting who you are, what
variant your new proposal is derived from, and how it is
different.
2. Offer in e-mail your critique of my proposal #15 (if you
"can't live with it"), so I can understand why you reject it
and what your counter-proposal is trying to achieve relative to
what I proposed. I hope I managed to do that in this e-mail...
Regards,
Peter
--
<22616636.gif>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
<22952140.gif>Oracle is committed to developing practices and
products that help protect the environment
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 14:15:28 UTC