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

I totally agree... 

 

Sometimes full documents are stored in a database... so I’m just a bit nervous about saying “a database”....

 

“Such files are not documents, but may contain documents or parts of documents that are covered by WCAG2ICT...”

 

Or something like that would maybe solve it for me.

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

 <http://www.can-adapt.com/> www.Can-Adapt.com

 

From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
Sent: July-03-13 8:51 PM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org; Gregg Vanderheiden; kirsten@can-adapt.com
Subject: 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

 

CanAdapt 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 34: 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 45: 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  <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Ultimate/> "Ultimate? Survey" response?


Peter

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com> Oracle
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>  
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> GreenOracleOracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment 

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com> Oracle
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>  
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> GreenOracleOracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment