Re: Recently discovered issue with WCAG2ICT definition of "document" - suggesting a new note to clarify

David,

What makes a file "raw"?  I view the situation of a program retrieving 
data from somewhere and presenting it within it's user interface as 
"content" that is displayed in software.  Said content must be 
accessible.  Said content could come from a database file. Said content 
could be a persisted user interface (cf. SC 4.1.1 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#ensure-compat-parses>).  And just 
like the 4.1.1 case (addressing your PS in the following e-mail), there 
could be information in that file that helps with accessibility (e.g. 
the database contains images and also ALT text for those images).

But we aren't loosing anything here - whatever is in the database that 
winds up being presented in a user interface is content that must be 
accessible.  If it isn't accessible when presented in software, WCAG2ICT 
catches it.

But it doesn't make sense to try to apply all of WCAG to a database file 
as if it was a web page or a word processing file.  That's the point here.


Peter

On 7/3/2013 5:43 PM, David MacDonald wrote:
>
> Just one nit...
>
> Can we add the word “raw” or some other word to make it clearer...
>
> **
>
> *... raw storage files such as databases*
>
> I’m a little nervous it might make the pendulum swing the other way 
> and some administrators might think it’s not a document if a user 
> agent serving up content from a database on the backend...
>
> Cheers
>
> David MacDonald
>
> **
>
> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*//
>
> /Adapting the web to *all* users/
>
> /Including those with disabilities/
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* July-03-13 6:59 PM
> *To:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
> *Subject:* Recently discovered issue with WCAG2ICT definition of 
> "document" - suggesting a new note to clarify
>
> Hi gang,
>
> As part of a wider review of WCAG2ICT (asking colleagues who aren't on 
> the Task Force to look at it), I just discovered an issue with the 
> definition of "document 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_document>". The issue is 
> that readers will see the term "document" and think "file", and 
> therefore try to apply WCAG requirements to all manner of files (virus 
> definition files and programming files were two specific concerns that 
> came up from colleagues).
>
> While our definition of "document" is based on the term "content 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content>" (which is 
> scoped to "information and sensory experience to be communicated to 
> the user"), I fear this fact is too easily missed.  Therefore, I 
> propose that we add an additional Note to clarify this:
>
> Note: 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 not examples of 
> documents.  Such files are not "information and sensory experience to 
> be communicated to the user" and therefore are not considered content.
>
> I have added that note in context, as proposed "(New) Note 3" in red 
> text as part of the full definition of document, below:
>
>     *document (as used in WCAG2ICT)*
>
>     assembly of content
>     <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_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 documents 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.
>
>     *(New) 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
>     not examples of documents.  Such files are not "information and
>     sensory experience to be communicated to the user" and therefore
>     are not considered content.*
>
>     *Note 3**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 4**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.).
>
>
>
> I would like to propose this edit as part of the WCAG WG review next 
> Tuesday July 9th, so it can get into the 3rd/final public draft that 
> we publish later in July.
>
> Any thoughts/edits before I do this as part of my WCAG WG "Ultimate? 
> Survey" <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ultimate/> response?
>
>
> Peter
>
> -- 
> 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
>

-- 
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