- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:16:35 -0700
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- CC: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <ez1testing@gmail.com>, kirsten@can-adapt.com
- Message-ID: <51D4CCF3.70406@oracle.com>
But David... When something comes out of a database or any other medium, and is displayed as a document to a user via a user agent, then it is a document and everything applies to it as such. Again, we don't loose anything here just because someone can encode a document in some fashion into a database. Should we say that a hard drive might have WCAG applied to it because we can store a document in a hard drive? With respect to "parts of documents", should I consider a RAID array of multiple disks as something that might have WCAG applied to it because parts of a document might be stored across those multiple disks? Peter On 7/3/2013 6:09 PM, David MacDonald wrote: > > 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 > > ** > > *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 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 > > ** > > *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 <mailto: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 > -- 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
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 01:17:31 UTC