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]

Dear all,

I'm sorry but I cannot attend any meeting next week. I'm still on holidays
with very limited Internet access.

Best regards,
Loïc


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> wrote:

>  Hi gang,
>
> Our public comment period ended yesterday, and we received only one
> comment<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2013Aug/thread.html>(see Mary Jo's summary of that one
> public comment from Duff Johnson<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-comments/2013Aug/0000.html>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 â–º 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* <hnielsen@us.ibm.com>
>
> *www.ibm.com/able* <http://www.ibm.com/able> and *w3.ibm.com/able*<http://w3.ibm.com/able>
> *
> **IBM Accessibility* <http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility> on
> Facebook â–¼ *IBMAccess* <http://twitter.com/IBMAccess> on Twitter â–¼ *IBM
> Accessibility* <http://www.linkedin.com/e/vgh/2419815/> on LinkedIn*
> “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
> become more, you are a leader.”  ~ John Quincy Adams*
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Peter Korn ---07/07/2013 08:48:11
> PM---Hi gang, I'm back home from my vacation, and I'm trying to mak]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> <peter.korn@oracle.com>
> To: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
> <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"*<https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/new-note-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"*<https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/new-note-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
>
> --
> *
> *[image: Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com/>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: *+1 650 5069522* <+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 *
> *[image: Green Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is
> committed to developing practices and products that help protect the
> environment
>
>
> --
> [image: Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
> [image: Green Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is
> committed to developing practices and products that help protect the
> environment
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loïc Martínez-Normand
DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo
28660 Boadilla del Monte
Madrid
---------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es
tfno: +34 91 336 74 11
---------------------------------------------------------------