Re: Doodle poll for meeting sometime next week to address our public comment, and some few potential changes to a final draft to publish [was Re: FYI, comments received on WCAG2ICT]

Hi all,
     I have broken down Duff's list of comments and entered them into the
comment tracking tool for the July 2013 draft. I pretty much broke them
down by section with one extra comment for plain editorials on the intro
section. If you think they needs to be broken down further, let me know.


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: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org,
Date: 08/16/2013 12:33 PM
Subject: Doodle poll for meeting sometime next week to address our
            public  comment, and some few potential changes to a final
            draft to publish [was  Re: FYI, comments received on WCAG2ICT]



Hi gang,

Our public comment period ended yesterday, and we received only one comment
(see Mary Jo's summary of that one public comment from Duff Johnson
below).

Gregg has an initial set of proposed responses that should be loaded into
our comment response system shortly, which we will then survey.  Some of
Duff's comments propose edits to our document which seem like good ideas -
that will also be surveyed.  I expect the survey will go out early next
week.

What I'd like to do is schedule a meeting late next week to review that
anticipated survey, and finalize our work on WCAG2ICT so that it can then
go to WCAG WG for their August 27th meeting (and so we can hopefully
publish our "version 1.0 Note" the first week of September.

To that end, I've put together a Doodle survey of possible meeting times.
Note: I am NOT proposing our usual meeting time, as I already know that
Mike Pluke cannot attend then.  The proposed times are all known to work
for both Mike and me; hopefully at least one of them will also work for a
majority of interested members of this TF.

Please find & fill out the survey at:  http://doodle.com/ausxmkz6yu5r3cgf



Regards,

Peter

On 8/13/2013 1:35 PM, Mary Jo Mueller 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

      Inactive2013 08:48:11
      PM---Hie from my vacation, and I'm trying
      to makPeter 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


      --

      Oracle
      Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
      Phone: +1 650 5069522
      500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
      Greenacle is committed to developing practices
      and products that help protect the environment



--
Oracle
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
Green         OracleOracle is committed to developing practices and
products that help protect the environment