- From: Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:19:15 +0100
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
- Cc: "Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJpUyznOfNJyszdM6nmuRq1wC8U53QosYgRc3BcB-CazHMQL=A@mail.gmail.com>
Bruce, Yes, this is what I would prefer. "set of webpages" = "software" is my preferred interpretation but that would re-open the debate of what is a "page" within a software product. And we haven't been able to agree on a proper interpretation of what would be the "within-software" concept that would be equivalent to "page"... So I'm afraid that we need to use "set of software". Best regards, Loïc On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@access-board.gov>wrote: > Speaking to both Loïc’s and Pierce’s points, it is not changing the SC > and not ignoring the word “set” to conclude that, in the context of > software and these success criteria, “set of webpages” should be > interpreted as “software”. This would result in guidance that is both > more intuitive and stronger. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Loïc Martínez Normand [loic@fi.upm.es] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:29 AM > *To:* Crowell, Pierce > *Cc:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force > *Subject:* Re: Set of software > > Dear all, > > First of all I know that we can't change the SC and that we can't ignore > the word "set", so I'm afraid we have to live with this... even if I really > think that we are missing essential accessibility requirements within > software products. But I'm afraid there is no other way out of this that to > have this definition of "set of documents". > > Concerning the definition, in the slides there are > two slightly different proposals (slides 2 and 3), and it seems to me that > the notes are mixed (note 2 in slide 3 only makes sense for the definition > in slide 2). Gregg, which one are you proposing that we agree on? > > Best regards, > Loïc > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Crowell, Pierce <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov>wrote: > >> Most of us gov folks cannot access DropBox. Can you send another way?** >> ** >> >> **** >> >> That we are to hunting for an example is telling. I am not relieved by >> the notion that it won’t come up much. What it means to me is that it will >> be confusing and probably misused by the uninitiated. **** >> >> **** >> >> Pierce**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:49 PM >> *To:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force >> *Subject:* Set of software**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> We have only 4 SC left **** >> >> **** >> >> all of the deal with sets**** >> >> **** >> >> we resolved the document side by defining set of documents.**** >> >> **** >> >> For the software side a "set of software" was proposed but there was a >> question raised as to whether there was software that met that the >> definition.**** >> >> **** >> >> I raised the question during a briefing in WCAG meeting and Robin Tuttle >> from Boing spoke up and said that she had worked on software that met the >> definition. **** >> >> **** >> >> She scheduled a meeting when people said they wanted to see it -- but no >> one made it. So I asked her for screen shots. **** >> >> **** >> >> Here is a link to a powerpoint of the software. **** >> >> **** >> >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13132127/Set%20of%20Software.4a.pptx**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> I would like to again propose that we just adopt the definition of >> software that we developed and close these last 4 items. **** >> >> **** >> >> There may not be many examples of this -- but it wasn’t hard to find the >> first one. Just a poll of the two working groups turned up one. **** >> >> **** >> >> At any rate, we all agree that there don't seem to be many -- so this one >> won't come up very often. And we all agree that we would not make this >> guideline for sets of software if we were making guidelines (but would >> instead talk about inside the software). But we were told we can't change >> the SC or ignore the word set... so I propose we adopt the definition since >> there are such things, and close these. **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *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 >> **** >> >> **** >> > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Loïc Martínez-Normand > DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid > Campus de Montegancedo > 28660 Boadilla del Monte > Madrid > --------------------------------------------------------------- > e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es > tfno: +34 91 336 74 11 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Loïc Martínez-Normand DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Campus de Montegancedo 28660 Boadilla del Monte Madrid --------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es tfno: +34 91 336 74 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 12:19:41 UTC