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

Hi Mike,

 

The last thing I want to do is to hold this thing up... like all of us, I’m
busy and want to get on with my paid work....but I think this is not right.
We had a consensus document, we closed up our meetings. After everything was
finished a new proposal was brought forth. It was an afterthought to clarify
that a database or virus definition file is not a document.  Using your
words, if someone thinks a database is a document, they “could only do so
using very faulty logic that would be easy to refute.”

 

So why was the note put forward? Because there is fear an over-zealous
administrator won’t carefully read our document, and we won’t be there to
“easily refute” it. Which is exactly why I think is important to get the
note right, I don’t want to rush through an important note, that could
foster “under zealous”  administrators misread it the other way and start
making exemptions for documents, and parts of documents stored in databases.
If we can’t do that then I cannot consent to the note. 

 

Here are the ones which I think are moving in the right direction. 

 

Gregg’s

 

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 have 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.

 

I think it would need some amends to deal with text that has information and
relationships stored such as headings etc... so not sure I would say
“alternate presentations”. It could be the default presentation.

 

Peter’s

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
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> content that occurs in
software (and WCAG2ICT applies to that
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_software> software).

 

 

Mine, which as you say, is short

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.  However,
any “information or sensory experience presented to the user” stored in
those files is subject to WCAG2ICT in the context that they are presented to
the user, such as the software to which they contribute. 

 

 

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: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: July-05-13 6:59 AM
To: Michael Pluke
Cc: David MacDonald; 'Peter Korn'; 'Loïc Martínez Normand';
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

 

here is what I think works.

 

 

RESEND

 

 

 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 have 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 5, 2013, at 5:43 AM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
wrote:





Hi David et al

 

Rather than review the massive string of emails on this topic, it might be
good if you could pull out the versions of the text that you think “work”. I
do recall some very lengthy versions. There is often a lot of truth in the
phrase “less is more” expression as some of the lengthy versions of our
texts are prone to introduce more areas of confusion or introduce false
precision to the intended meaning.

 

I am not sure if your preferred definitions change the first sentence, but
the statement that “storage files such as databases … are not examples of
documents” is correct – and I think that you acknowledge that a database is
not a document.

 

Some of the database records could be documents, but they are only of
interest from a WCAG2ICT perspective when they are extracted from the
database and presented to a user via a user agent. Then these records will
clearly behave as documents (i.e. they need a user agent to present content)
and they must meet all of the WCAG2ICT success criteria for documents.

 

I agree that there is always the risk that someone will try to use any
misinterpretation of what is written as an excuse to say why they do not
need to meet WCAG2ICT success criteria, but in my opinion they could only do
so using very faulty logic that would be easy to refute.

 

Best regards

 

Mike

 

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] 
Sent: 04 July 2013 19:42
To: 'Peter Korn'
Cc: Michael Pluke; 'Loïc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden';
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

 

I am in total agreement with everyone on the thread and have no question in
my mind that we all understand that a database is not a document in
itself...

 

My concern is perception and misunderstanding... I think your proposal in
response to my concern worked, Gregg’s did, and also my friendly amendment
addresses it fine...

 

I don’t think the other attempts do, unfortunately... One reason for the
note is to reduce confusion so that vendors don’t have to jump through hoops
to explain that their database is not a document... the whole purpose for my
friendly amendment is to reduce confusion so that well-meaning busy
administrators who don’t want to make things accessible don’t force folks
like me to have to jump through hoops trying to them why the end users
content they serve up out of a database needs to be accessible.

 

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>
mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
Sent: July-04-13 2:11 PM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: 'Michael Pluke'; 'Loïc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden';
<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org; 'Gregg
Vanderheiden';  <mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com> kirsten@can-adapt.com
Subject: Re: Recently discovered issue with WCAG2ICT definition of
"document" - suggesting a new note to clarify

 

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

 

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>
mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
Sent: July-04-13 1:19 PM
To: Michael Pluke
Cc: Loïc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden; David MacDonald;
<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org; Gregg
Vanderheiden;  <mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com> 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 isexclusively 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> mailto:loic@fi.upm.es]

Sent: 04 July 2013 11:07
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Peter Korn; David MacDonald;  <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org; Gregg Vanderheiden;
<mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com> 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 <
<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu> 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>
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 4, 2013, at 12:56 AM, Peter Korn < <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>
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
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#ensure-compat-parses> SC 4.1.1:
"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
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> content that occurs in
software (and WCAG2ICT applies to that
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_software> 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 < <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>
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 < <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>
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.
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#ensure-compat-parses> SC 4.1.1).  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

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

 

From: Peter Korn [ <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>
mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
Sent: July-03-13 6:59 PM
To:  <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> 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
" <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_document> 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 "
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> 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  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> 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/> <Mail Attachment.gif>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone:  <tel:+1%20650%205069522> +1 650 5069522 
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> <Mail Attachment.gif>Oracle is committed
to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com/> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone:  <tel:+1%20650%205069522> +1 650 5069522 
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is
committed to developing practices and products that help protect the
environment

 

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com/> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone:  <tel:+1%20650%205069522> +1 650 5069522 
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is
committed to developing practices and products that help protect the
environment

 

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com/> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>

Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone:  <tel:+1%20650%205069522> +1 650 5069522

500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065

 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> 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:  <mailto:loic@fi.upm.es> loic@fi.upm.es
tfno: +34 91 336 74 11
---------------------------------------------------------------

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com> <image001.gif>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone:  <tel:+1%20650%205069522> +1 650 5069522 
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> <image002.gif>Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com> <image001.gif>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone:  <tel:+1%20650%205069522> +1 650 5069522 
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> <image002.gif>Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment