- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 12:35:57 -0700
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- CC: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Michael Pluke'" <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, 'Loïc Martínez Normand' <loic@fi.upm.es>, public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <ez1testing@gmail.com>, kirsten@can-adapt.com
- Message-ID: <51D7201D.9040500@oracle.com>
Hi Mike, all,
If I'm counting noses properly, Mike's proposed text works for Mike,
Loïc, and me:
*(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.*
**
*
*I believe David isn't comfortable with this because it doesn't make
sufficiently clear what should happen when content may be
extracted/derived from these files (e.g. a database containing a
document) and presented to a user. I tried to address this with a
second sentence:
***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 suggested a different alternate sentence, which is perhaps
slightly shorter, but my sense is that he would also be comfortable with
my proposed second sentence above. David's suggestion:
**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.
Finally, Gregg is (re)-suggesting his earlier proposal, which David says
(below) "need some amends to deal with text that has information and
relationships stored such as headings etc.". I am also not comfortable
with Gregg's suggestion, as I find it conditionalizes the examples to
only being non-documents when they "are part of a software package or
update to part of a software package". Here is Gregg's (re)-suggested text:
*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.*
Gregg - I haven't heard from you any specific objection to what Mike
wrote (at the top of this e-mail) or my second sentence or David's
re-write of my second sentence. Without understanding any concern, I
don't know if any exists or how to try to address it.
In hopes that you don't have a concern with that text, here's my
proposal for how we move forward: we start with Mike's text, and then we
add to that my suggested second sentence which I wrote to address
David's concern from Wednesday evening (David - I prefer my language to
yours as it is more specific, and also include glossary hyperlinks to
add further clarity to the reader):
*(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 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>).*
Now the magic question(s):
1. Can everyone live with this text?
2. If not, what specifically about this text can you not live with (and
then how would you change it, keeping in mind the stated objections
from the others participating in this discussion)?
Peter
P.S. I'm about to leave for a not-quite-3-day (at this point) vacation.
My e-mail access will be very limited during that time...
On 7/5/2013 7:45 AM, David MacDonald wrote:
>
> 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****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>).*
>
> 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
>
> **
>
> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*//
>
> /Adapting the web to *all* users/
>
> /Including those with disabilities/
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://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 <mailto: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
> <http://sympatico.ca>]
> *Sent:*04 July 2013 19:42
> *To:*'Peter Korn'
> *Cc:*Michael Pluke; 'Loïc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden';
> 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
>
> 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
>
> **
>
> *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 2:11 PM
> *To:*David MacDonald
> *Cc:*'Michael Pluke'; 'Loïc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg
> Vanderheiden';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
>
> 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
> <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
>
> 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
> inSC 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" inred textas part of the full
> definition of document, below:
>
> *document (as used in WCAG2ICT)*
>
> assembly ofcontent
> <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 documentsalways 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> <image001.gif> <http://www.oracle.com>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone:+1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> <image002.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed
> to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>
> --
> <image001.gif> <http://www.oracle.com>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone:+1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> <image002.gif> <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 Friday, 5 July 2013 19:38:30 UTC