- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:13:11 -0700
- To: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
- CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5214F527.7030703@oracle.com>
Gregg, all, The more we iterate over this and discuss the challenges arising from various suggestions, the more uncomfortable I'm getting with the direction this is going. Nor am I convinced of the need for something. On the one hand, we understandably are striving to avoid anything related to "author / developer intent", as it is near impossible to discern intent (e.g. "meant to function as"). On the other hand, we need to avoid the inverse problem: discerning what a user might think (e.g. "that appears to the user as"). While I like having something more than we had to more directly hang our Note 3 off of, I'm not convinced we need it. AND I remain convinced that all of the specific examples cited are already covered by Note 3. Peter On 8/21/2013 8:34 AM, Alex Li wrote: > > I like this better than the previous proposal. But I worry that we > are again inventing terms that people don't necessarily understand or > may easily come up with different meaning than intended. What is a > "single composition"? How do you determine something is or isn't a > "single composition"? > > *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:24 AM > *To:* Bailey, Bruce > *Cc:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force > *Subject:* Re: Definition of Documents -- OOPS - error fixed -- use > this email to comment > > right after I posted it I came to the same conclusion. What people > have sought is something that can be judged from the author and the > viewer standpoint. > > so "meant" "intended" "designed" etc all require knowledge from the > author end. > > So I suggest "*that appears to the user as a single composition"* > > there should also be a comma after software so that it reads > > assembly of content, such as a file, set of files, or streamed > media *that appears to the user as a single > composition**,* that is not part of software, and that does > not include its own user agent > > that would make it > > *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 appears to the > user as a single composition>,* 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.). > > /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 20, 2013, at 6:25 AM, "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@Access-Board.gov > <mailto:Bailey@Access-Board.gov>> 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 > <http://trace.wisc.edu>] > *Sent:*Monday, August 19, 2013 10:52 PM > *To:*Peter Korn > *Cc:*Alex Li; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > <mailto: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 94064 Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2013 17:14:04 UTC