- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:06:02 -0700
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
- CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <521385DA.6010904@oracle.com>
Bruce,
I agree we need to be careful about author-intent-like language.
Because "setness" is something defined by the author (and then, if done
properly with inter-linking, etc., experienced by the user), I would
prefer phrasing closer to "designed to be a single entity".
See some of the language in our proposed response to LC-2821
<https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-wcag2ict-20130711/2821>
(emphasis added):
The definition of SET was carefully crafted *to both capture the
same sense of the term as intended or equivalent to the use of the
term in WCAG* -- and to create a clear definition that can be
applied in this case. *This is not an attempt to generically
define the term "set of applications" or "set of software".* *A set
of web pages on a website is a (sub)set of content created by a
single author, who designed those pages to be collected together in
a set.* Our definition is meant ONLY to be "the way that 'set of
documents/software' should be interpreted when using it to try to
apply this success criterion to non-web documents (or software), and
our definition carries forward that "designed to be together"
concept to non-web documents (and likewise non-web software).
Peter
On 8/20/2013 4:25 AM, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>
> I don't disagree with the combination, but I do want to double check
> on something. I recall, but cannot point to anything, that for WCAG
> we rather deliberated avoided normative phrasing that was based on
> author intent. If my recollection about this is correct, then "meant
> to function as a single entity" is just a little too subjective. If,
> and only if, I am raising a valid issue then perhaps we could tweak
> the phrasing to something like "experienced by the end-user as a
> single entity"?
>
> *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2013 10:52 PM
> *To:* Peter Korn
> *Cc:* Alex Li; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
> *Subject:* Re: Definition of Documents -- OOPS - error fixed -- use
> this email to comment
>
> In not sure why it doesn't -- since the hard drive files are clearly a
> collection and not meant to be an entity -- since each persons is
> different.
>
> But since we agree that that the note and the added text solve the
> problem together -- I think we are all set.
>
> Since we can't actually have the note 3 without support in the
> definition -- having the extra phrase in the definition helps the note
> too.
>
> So, does anyone disagree with the combination?
>
> Just double checking since it will be up for clearance on Friday where
> we are hoping to bring this to a conclusion and send on to WCAG WG.
>
> thanks
>
> /Gregg/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com
> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> Gregg, Alex,
>
> I don't see how Gregg's change addresses hard drive partitions. BUT
> they are already addressed by our Note 3, so I'm not worried about those.
>
> Further, as I think about this, I think the other concern of an e-mail
> file is likewise addressed by our Note 3 ("software configuration AND
> STORAGE FILES such as databases"). A mail file containing in a single
> file an entire folder of e-mails is fundamentally a simple flat file
> database STORAGE FILE.
>
> I don't mind the generalization language that Gregg suggests
> inserting. It makes Note 3 more of a specific example of the general
> new phrase Gregg proposes. But I also think we were prescient enough
> in crafting the language of Note 3 to cover all of the examples cited
> so far as potential problems.
>
> Peter
>
> On 8/19/2013 1:54 PM, Alex Li wrote:
>
> Gregg,
>
> How does the change prevent readers from interpreting a hard drive
> partition as a "single entity"?
>
> All best,
>
> Alex
>
> *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2013 1:32 PM
> *To:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
> Force
> *Subject:* Definition of Documents -- OOPS - error fixed -- use
> this email to comment
>
> Sorry,
>
> grabbed the wrong draft - here is the actual current definition
> with change. (last one was missing the new note 3)
>
> G
>
> In responding to comments made during our public review of
> WCAG2ICT it appears that we have a flaw in our definition of
> document. Our current definition is:
>
> *document (as used in WCAG2ICT)*
>
> assembly of content
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_content>, such as a
> file, set of files, or streamed media that is not part of software
> and that does not include its own user agent
>
> *Note 1: *A document always requires a user agent to present its
> content <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_content> to
> the user.
>
> *Note 2: *Letters, spreadsheets, emails, books, pictures,
> presentations, and movies are examples of documents.
>
> *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
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_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, it is just another part of the content
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_content> that occurs
> in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the
> software. Where such files contain one or more embedded documents,
> the embedded documents remain documents under this definition.
>
> *Note 4: *Anything that can present its own content
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_content> without
> involving a user agent, such as a self playing book, is not a
> document but is software
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_software>.
>
> *Note 5: *A single document may be composed of multiple files such
> as the video content, closed caption text, etc. This fact is not
> usually apparent to the end-user consuming the document / content
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_content>. This is
> similar to how a single web page can be composed of content from
> multiple URIs (e.g. the page text, images, the JavaScript, a CSS
> file etc.).
>
> however, this definition is so broad that an entire email system
> (such as Outlook which stores all of the email in a single .PST
> file) would qualify as a single document. In fact, an entire hard
> drive (that did not contain the OS or apps that displayed it)
> could be considered a document.
>
> I therefore suggest that the phrase
>
> *"that is meant to function as a single entity rather than a
> collection,"*
>
> be added so that it reads:
>
> assembly of content, such as a file, set of files, or streamed
> media *that is meant to function as a single entity rather than a
> collection,* that is not part of software, and that does not
> include its own user agent
>
> Comments welcome
>
> /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
> <http://cloud4all.info/>
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International -
> http://Raisingthefloor.org <http://raisingthefloor.org/>
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -
> http://GPII.net <http://gpii.net/>
>
--
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 15:07:35 UTC