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

very nice

I think

"that functions as a single entity rather than a collection"

The proposed main requirement then becomes:
assembly of content, such as a file, set of files, or streamed media, < that functions as a single entity rather than a collection >,  that is not part of software, and that does not include its own user agent


Works very well.




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 22, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> Sorry to be late to the debate – I have been deeply embroiled in trying to get our WCAG2ICT-based updates agreed prior to the formal comment resolution period. The definitions of “document” and “set of documents” are a core part of those discussions (we haven’t even begun to tackle set of software).
>  
> I too really do not like the “single composition” formulation. I have not yet introduced that wording to the team, but already two people think that it is a term that is, as Alex says, “too esoteric”!
>  
> I was one who complained about the phrase “meant to” in the original proposal. What is really important is not whether something was intended or meant to do something (which can never be known or tested) but whether it actually does something in practice (which can be tested).
>  
> So If we use the phrase:
>  
> "that functions as a single entity rather than a collection"
>  
> we should be OK. If the assembly of content does behave as a single entity (i.e. as a document) then all is well. If it does not it is NOT a document. This may be because the particular assembly of content  is some random selection of items that were never intended to be a single document, or it could be that they were intended (meant) to be a document – but someone got it wrong at the design stage.
>  
> The proposed main requirement then becomes:
>  
> assembly of content, such as a file, set of files, or streamed media, < that functions as a single entity rather than a collection >,  that is not part of software, and that does not include its own user agent
>  
> In summary – if it looks like a document and functions as a document – then it is a document! If it fails to function as a document – then it is not a document!
>  
> I have not tried this formulation with the wider M376 drafting team – so they may not like it. Even if they do, the reviewers of the standard may not like it. But I think that it is important that WCAG2ICT can agree something that at least stands a chance of being accepted – and I am afraid that “single composition” is not that something.
>  
> I have not yet formed an opinion regarding Note 3.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mike
>  
> From: Alex Li [mailto:alli@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: 22 August 2013 00:27
> To: Peter Korn; Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: Bailey, Bruce; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
> Subject: RE: Definition of Documents -- OOPS - error fixed -- use this email to comment
>  
> I am dubious of inventing new and unexplained terms. If all we need is a dictionary, then we wouldn't need a glossary in the first place.  I hope the irony that we are debating how to define a very common word that's in all known English dictionaries is not lost here.
> 
> We need to be self aware enough that we use esoteric languages that most people just can't understand. Go ask any random person what single composition means. I think a blank stare is the most likely response. 
> 
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> From: Peter Korn
> Sent: ‎8/‎21/‎2013 15:59
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: Alex Li; Bailey, Bruce; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
> Subject: Re: Definition of Documents  -- OOPS - error fixed  -- use this email to comment
> 
> Gregg,
> 
> I disagree with your claim below.  Our existing definition text (with emphasis added) is:
> "assembly of 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 3 only provides further details about types of content that are part of software, namely "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", which the Note simply observes "are examples of files that function as part of software and thus are not examples of documents".
> 
> Seems to me we have plenty enough to hang Note 3 on.
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 8/21/2013 11:07 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> We really don't have a basis for including Note 3.   With our current wording -- the note adds to rather than explains -- and notes shouldn’t do that.   So actually we shouldn’t have added the note with our current language since they contradict each other.   The definition has no limitations like those added in the note. 
>  
> The 'single composition' language fixes this problem.  and is not ambiguous and does not rely on 'intent' language.
>  
>  
>  
> Gregg
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>  
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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, 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 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 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 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 without involving a user agent, such as a self playing book, is not a document but is 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. 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> 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> 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 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, 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 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 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 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 without involving a user agent, such as a self playing book, is not a document but is 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. 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
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net
>  
>  
> -- 
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>  
>  
> -- 
> <image001.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
> <image002.gif>Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment