RE: Definition of Documents -- OOPS - error fixed -- use this email to comment

Thanks so much for pointing these out David!


From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:33 PM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Alex Li'
Cc: Bailey, Bruce; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org; kirsten@can-adapt.com
Subject: RE: Definition of Documents -- OOPS - error fixed -- use this email to comment

I kind of like "single composition". It might end up being one of the those Gregg-orian terms that come into regular use...

No problem for me there... as to the "author intent" vs. "appears to the user as" spectrum...
We have a WCAG precedent... not saying we should use intended... but we have before... as so far in 6 years we've never had a negative comment about its use...


1.1.1        exception

Sensory: If non-text content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory experience<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#sensoryexpdef>, then text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification of the non-text content.

1.4.7 Low or No Background Audio: For prerecorded<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#prerecordeddef> audio-only<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#audio-onlydef> content that (1) contains primarily speech in the foreground, (2) is not an audio CAPTCHA<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#CAPTCHAdef> or audio logo, and (3) is not vocalization intended to be primarily musical expression such as singing or rapping, ...

Glossary
user-controllable
data that is intended to be accessed by users
Web page
a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#useragentdef>




Cheers,
David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>

  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

This e-mail originates from CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.

Le présent courriel a été expédié par CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: August 21, 2013 1:15 PM
To: Alex Li
Cc: Bailey, Bruce; 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

Both words are meant to be exactly what the dictionary definition is.
Single
Composition


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 21, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com<mailto:alli@microsoft.com>> 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<http://trace.wisc.edu>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:24 AM
To: Bailey, Bruce
Cc: 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

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/>