- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:11:22 -0700
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- CC: "'Michael Pluke'" <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, 'Loïc Martínez Normand' <loic@fi.upm.es>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <ez1testing@gmail.com>, kirsten@can-adapt.com
- Message-ID: <51D5BACA.9030906@oracle.com>
David, On 7/4/2013 11:04 AM, David MacDonald wrote: > > *"..are **examples of files **that function as **part of software and > thus are **not examples of documents."* > > ** > > Help me here, but can't complete documents be stored in a database? > Just about anything can be stored in a database. But how is this different from a Word document stored (in a whole bunch of revisions/pieces/markup tracking) in Sharepoint? Or a Word document sitting on an entire filesystem for a virtual OS, where that virtual OS filesystem is itself a file on the underlying OS? Once you extract this thing from the database, if that thing is a document, then WCAG2ICT would treat it as a document. Just like once you extract this thing from a virtual OS filesystem, if that thing is a document, you treat it as such. But simply because one (or more) documents are stored within a database or Sharepoint file or virtual OS filesystem, that doesn't make that database/Sharepoint file/virtual OS file itself a document. Anymore than an "auto-generated sample document" that is completely programmatically generated by software would turn that software itself into a document (I wrote code to do exactly this, complete with accessibility information, earlier this year). The thing becomes a document when generated/regurgitated as such. Until that happens, it isn't a document. Peter > 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-04-13 1:19 PM > *To:* Michael Pluke > *Cc:* Loïc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden; David MacDonald; > 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 > > Mike, > > Your text (below) works for me. Thanks for the suggested edits. > > > Peter > > On 7/4/2013 3:49 AM, Michael Pluke wrote: > > Dear all > > My proposal was trying to stick very closely to the basic > definition that a document is an "assembly of content". Our > definition does not say that a document is *exclusively* content, > so it could legitimately include things that are not content as > well as content. However the definition makes it clear that if it > has *no content* then it is not a document. So, if our definition > is correct my proposal is a warning and a clarification of what > does and does not fit. > > However, there is an alternate approach that Loïc has taken in his > email (below). This picks up on another part of the definition. > However I have some slight concerns about how to interpret the > words "that is not part of software" (that is part of a > definition). I fear that this concept is open to interpretation with: > > -some arguing that this virus definition file is exclusively used > by the software as part of the way the software works -- therefore > it is "part of the software"; > > -whilst others will argue that the software application is one > file and the virus definitions are in another file -- therefore > the virus definitions are separate from the software and they are > not "part of the software". > > I think that Gregg has correctly addressed this ambiguity in his > much longer last attempt to solve our dilemma. He says that: > > -"But they function as, and would be evaluated as, part(s) of the > software and not as separate entities or as documents." > > I think that if we take Loïc's much simpler and shorter note and > add in Gregg's point we could end up with someone that effectively > removes or significantly reduces the ambiguity: > > *(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 > **examples of files **that function as **part of software and thus > are **not examples of documents.* > > If we can accept "that function as" here instead of "are" we > should be OK. If not we might have to throw the spotlight on the > word "are" in our main definition -- and I'd rather not go there!! > > Best regards > > Mike > > *From:*Loïc Martínez Normand [mailto:loic@fi.upm.es] > *Sent:* 04 July 2013 11:07 > *To:* Gregg Vanderheiden > *Cc:* Peter Korn; David MacDonald; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>; Gregg Vanderheiden; > kirsten@can-adapt.com <mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com> > *Subject:* Re: Recently discovered issue with WCAG2ICT definition > of "document" - suggesting a new note to clarify > > Dear all, > > What a discussion! I just went to be minutes after receiving the > first email... and bang! I woke up with a very long thread. > > I think that things are getting overcomplicated as the discussion > has progressed and I'm going to try to simplify. > > But first I need to go back to the origin of the discussion. We > have the definitions of "content" and "document": > > * *content* (non-web content): information and sensory > experience to be communicated to the user by means of > software, including code or markup that defines the content's > structure, presentation, and interactions. > * *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 > > First, lets not forget that the definition of content includes the > code or markup that defines the structure, presentation and > interactions. That means that we can have a file written in markup > language that can be considered to be a document. > > Second, the important bit of the definition of document for this > discussion is that a document "is not part of software". I think > that the files that Peter has been talking about (configuration > files, virus definition files, internal databases) are in fact, > part of software and thus are not documents. > > So my proposal for the new (shorter) note is: > > *(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 > **examples of files that are part of software and thus are **not > examples of documents. * > > What do you think? I don't think that we need to add text to > explain that it is the software who "contains" these files who > need to be considered, do we? > > Best regards, > > Loïc > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden > <gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>> wrote: > > Wow -- this is getting long. > > I think I see another way around the problem. (see below ) > > First - what was the problem. > > - the problem comes from talking about a file that is "separate > from the software" (such as an update file or database) that is > used by the software and subsequently causes information not in > the software to be displayed. Is this a 'document?" > > - the concern was that if the software doesn't know of the > contents of the file in advance, then any new non-text content of > the file that gets presented to a user cannot be made accessible > by the software. nohow. So the file needs to follow the SC and > itself provide the alternate form of the non-text content just > like any html file for example. > > The language below (and previous versions) did not cover this -- > and said that the software was responsible and the file did not > need to follow the SC. This is a problem. > > HOWEVER - I think we can get where you want to be by talking about > the virus update etc as and UPDATE to the Software rather than a > separate piece of content or 'document'. > > Something like this: > > *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, that are part of a software package, or > an update to part of the software package are not examples of > documents. As with any update, if they include new non-text > information for presentation to users, they would be expected > to include accompanying alternate text presentations if the > software doesn't already have them or the ability to create > them. But they function as, and would be evaluated as, > part(s) of the software and not as separate entities or as > documents.* > > Does that address the problem - without creating a new one? > > /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 Jul 4, 2013, at 12:56 AM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com > <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote: > > Gregg, David, > > I think where we are getting tripped up is around the > common-sense concept of what a document is, vs. files that > could contain information that in some fashion gets displayed > to a user, at some point, by software. > > I think about files used internally by some software to > persist the user interface (see the last example paragraph in > SC 4.1.1 > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#ensure-compat-parses>: > "Examples of markup used internally for persistence of the > software user interface that are never exposed to assistive > technology include: XUL, GladeXML, and FXML. In these examples > assistive technology only interacts with the user interface of > generated software."). These files define a software program's > user interface - the contents of the menus and toolbars and > dialog boxes. But for the fact that they happen to exist as a > separate file on disk, they are simply part of the software > program as shipped, and we don't treat them as documents. If > instead of being encoded in ASCII/UNICODE, they were in binary > form, nobody would be the wiser that these files weren't > executable programs. *We don't think of these XML UI > definition files as "documents" for the purposes of > WCAG2ICT.* We don't attempt to apply all of the success > criteria to them separately; *they are simply a part of the > software program and they are covered through the evaluation > the software program*. If there is something missing in them > needed for accessibility (e.g. ALT text for the icon in the > toolbar), that causes the software to fail a success > criterion, then the software simply fails the SC. > > Similarly, a virus definition file that had embedded within it > the names of known viruses and the names of places they appear > - which may get displayed by the user when a virus is found - > is really part of the anti-virus application (as periodically > updated by the vendor). If they were binary files that were > delivered as "software patches" we wouldn't think of them as > documents. That they happen to have filenames encoded in > ASCII/UNICODE should make no difference. As with the > XUL/GladeXML/FXML example in the paragraph above, they are > simply a part of the software program and they are covered > through the evaluation of the software program. If there is > something missing in them, that causes the software to fail a > success criterion, then the software simply fails the SC. It > doesn't matter from which software file the failure arises. > > Finally, if someone were to write a program (and defined the > accompanying database) that stored & retrieved documents, the > fact that the storage mechanism is in a database file (or > collection of files) is no different than if instead the > "file" was a filesystem on a disk drive. If you have ever run > virtualization software like VirtualBox, you may notice that > the "hard drive" that gets created for your virtual machine is > in fact a file in the filesystem of the underlying platform. > That "hard drive" file will contain any number of documents > (and programs and so forth). That doesn't make the hard drive > file */itself /*a document (anymore than a database into which > someone has stored documents thereby becomes itself a > document). We don't apply WCAG2ICT's success criteria to the > VirtualBox hard drive file in the underlying platform. > > > So... assuming we all agree with those three paragraphs above, > the question becomes how best to state this. > > Gregg - the approach you are advocating puts a constraint on > the types of files: they avoid being called "documents" only > if they "do not present information to users through a user > agent" (this is because of where you have placed the comma). > But since we have redefined content from what it was in WCAG - > to remove the term "user agent" from it - we have content > being any "information and sensory experience to be > communicated to the user by means of software". So we have > something that is circular. > > > Maybe I can get at this another way: by making clear that > where files that are simply part of software happen to contain > "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the > user", you don't consider those separate files to be > documents, but instead apply WCAG2ICT to that software (and > the content rendered by it, where ever it may have come > from). See the new 2nd sentence below: > > *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. **If and where > software retrieves "information and sensory experience to be > communicated to the user" from such files, those files > contribute to content > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> that > occurs in software (and WCAG2ICT applies to that software > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_software>).* > > > David - in the case of your example of a database containing > documents... if the document is never available separately > (e.g. the software program that stores/retrieves/displays the > document from the database is the only way a user can ever > read & interact with the document), then I claim it isn't a > document. If this were a closed system (e.g. a kiosk) > displaying canned information stored entirely inside it (not > retrieved over the web), we would only evaluate it as software > (with closed functionality). We wouldn't attempt to say that > the kiosk's information was contained one or more documents > that can be separately evaluated - that information is opaque > to us. > > Now, if/when a document is retrieved from a database and > emitted into a stand-alone form that can separately be > retrieved and presented by a user agent (e.g. I've obtained a > Word file from Microsoft Sharepoint and stored a snapshot of > it on my local hard drive), then that */becomes /*a document > and it can be separately evaluated as such. But the datastore > maintained by Microsoft Sharepoint (containing any number of > documents and document revisions, in any number of snapshots > and states), isn't itself a document. It is a file that is > internal to the application. > > > Peter > > > On 7/3/2013 6:40 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:22 PM, Peter Korn > <peter.korn@oracle.com <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote: > > > > > Gregg, > > Your suggestion leads to circular reasoning. > > The problem with this route is then any time we have some > information in some file somewhere, and that information > is the source in some fashion of "content", the software > that presents it becomes a user agent? And the file > becomes a document? > > If the information is displayed to users -- it IS content. > and if the database contains the text and images to > display -- then it HAS to contain the alternate text for > the images. (The app displaying the data can't add alt > text itself - it doesn't know what they data is til > display time) > > So this is exactly what we WANT it to say. > > > > > > So if my virus definition file contains the names of > viruses, and those names are displayed in my anti-virus > program, the anti-virus program is now a user agent? And > the virus definition file is now a document? > > Absolutely. And if the virus definition files used icons > instead of text to 'name' the viruses - the virus > definition file would have to have alt text for those icons. > > And if there is any other non-text information to be > displayed to the user-- the virus definition file would > need to have the text alternative so the application could > provide that text as well in a programmatically > determinable way. > > > > > > > That makes no sense. > > Make sense now? > > G > > > > > > > Peter > > On 7/3/2013 6:18 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > > how about instead of raw - we pick up on the key > distinction. > > *(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, **that do > not present information to users through a user > agent** 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* > > If a database IS just data that a user agent displays- > then it WOULD be covered. One could argue that an > html file is sourcecode for the page rendering. > Certainly the javascript is. > > /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 <http://cloud4all.info/> > Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - > http://Raisingthefloor.org <http://raisingthefloor.org/> > and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project > - http://GPII.net <http://gpii.net/> > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Peter Korn > <peter.korn@oracle.com <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > -- > <Mail Attachment.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/> > Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal > Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 > <Mail Attachment.gif> > <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is > committed to developing practices and products > that help protect the environment > > -- > <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/> > Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal > Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 > <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> > <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed > to developing practices and products that help protect > the environment > > -- > <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/> > Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal > Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 > <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> > <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to > developing practices and products that help protect the > environment > > -- > <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/> > > Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal > Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> > > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 > > <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> > Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that > help protect the environment > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 <mailto:loic@fi.upm.es> > tfno: +34 91 336 74 11 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> > Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal > Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 > 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 94065 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 18:14:39 UTC