- 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