- From: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:19:17 -0400
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: "peter.korn@oracle.com" <peter.korn@oracle.com>, "loic@fi.upm.es" <loic@fi.upm.es>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>, "ez1testing@gmail.com" <ez1testing@gmail.com>, "kirsten@can-adapt.com" <kirsten@can-adapt.com>
- Message-ID: <5735ED0D92A3E6469F161EB41E7C28A86797CBDB9E@MAILR001.mail.lan>
Hi David
A PDF file is always a non-web document - whether it is stored in a computer file system, a database or a .PST file. It fits our definition of document and where it is stored is not relevant.
However a database file or a .pst file are not documents, because they are files "that function as part of software" - the software being a database software and Outlook respectively. The software may enable PDFs stored in the database or .pst file to be made separately available for presentation to users - via user agent. The database or Outlook software must meet the WCAG2ICT requirements for software (as must user agent software). The PDFs, that just happen to come from a database or a .PST file, must meet the WCAG2ICT requirements for non-web documents.
I think that this all works very consistently - I don't see any problem.
Best regards
Mike
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: 07 July 2013 12:13
To: Michael Pluke; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
Cc: peter.korn@oracle.com; loic@fi.upm.es; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org; ez1testing@gmail.com; kirsten@can-adapt.com
Subject: RE: Recently discovered issue with WCAG2ICT definition of "document" - suggesting a new note to clarify
I agree it's a problem that databases can contain records to which WCAG2ICT applies, and removing specific mention to databases reduces the risk of a lazy administrator saying "our documents are stored in databases so they are exempt" ... of course when someone says "storage file" the first thing I think of is database. But I could live with that.
So let's say a .pst file contains a PDF attachment. Is that PDF "just another part of content that appears in software"? Isn't it a non-web document, rather than a part of software? In the report we say software and non-web documents. Perhaps I'm missing something but shouldn't we cover off both software and non-web documents contained in storage files.
Cheers
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>
From: Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com]
Sent: July-07-13 5:48 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>; david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>; loic@fi.upm.es<mailto:loic@fi.upm.es>; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>; ez1testing@gmail.com<mailto:ez1testing@gmail.com>; 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
To be precise I was thinking of:
(New) Note 3: Software configuration and storage files such as virus definition files, 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. Because those files are just parts of the software (or updates to it) any "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user" from such files, is just another part of the content<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> that occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software).
When you strip away any specific examples of the type of "storage files" that should not be classified as documents we are left with all "storage files". This could be going too far as "documents" could easily be said to fit into the entire large set "storage files".
However, we do not need to be exhaustive on the types of files that are not documents. Choosing database files was causing us problems as a database could contain documents.
I had thought further on this and come to the following conclusions:
- Database files are really only one class of many types of file that "that function as part of software". Users interact with databases through database applications that operate upon these database files as part of their core behaviour. I would hope that everyone would read the above Note 3 and reach the same judgement that these raw database files are definitely not documents, they are a key part of how a database application functions.
- There are many other examples of such files that are effectively essential resource files that are used by an application. Microsoft Outlook stores all its emails and attachments (documents) in .PST files. We wouldn't want to highlight these as examples of files that are not documents. Maybe .PSTs could be seen as database files, maybe not, but in either case they are clearly files "that function as part of software" and are therefore clearly exempt from being classified as documents.
I will repeat, below, Peter's call to agreement to see if we can close on the above Note 3 where we lose the reference to "database".
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)?
Best regards
Mike
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: 07 July 2013 02:17
To: Michael Pluke
Cc: peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>; david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>; loic@fi.upm.es<mailto:loic@fi.upm.es>; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>; ez1testing@gmail.com<mailto:ez1testing@gmail.com>; 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
You mean something like
(New) Note 3: Software configuration and storage files, 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. Because those files are just parts of the software (or updates to it) any "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user" from such files, is just another part of the content<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> that occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software).
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 6, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
Hi all
These databases are causing us a lot of hassle! We all agree that a database is not a document - neither is a filing system! I don't think that any rational person would think that a complete database in any way relates to our basic document definition!
On the other hand both a filing system and a database could *contain* what you refer to as stand alone documents. In both cases these documents would be easily identifiable as documents. They would meet our basic document definition and Notes 1 and 2 would both apply. In all cases, a user agent would be required to present these stand alone documents to users, whether they had been stored in a filing system or a database.
Could we save ourselves a lot of trouble and circuitous wording by simply removing the words "databases and " from Note 3?
Best regards
Mike
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com<http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
-----Original Message-----
From: David MacDonald [david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>]
Received: Saturday, 06 Jul 2013, 23:40
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden' [gv@trace.wisc.edu<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>]; 'Peter Korn' [peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>]
CC: Michael Pluke [Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>]; 'Loďc Martínez Normand' [loic@fi.upm.es<mailto:loic@fi.upm.es>]; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> [public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>]; 'Gregg Vanderheiden' [ez1testing@gmail.com<mailto:ez1testing@gmail.com>]; kirsten@can-adapt.com<mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com> [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
Hi Gregg
There is just one thing left for me... stand alone document stored in a database...
Can we use software or non- web documents? Like elsewhere...
Cheers
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu<http://trace.wisc.edu>]
Sent: July-06-13 5:46 PM
To: Peter Korn
Cc: David MacDonald; Michael Pluke; Loďc Martínez Normand; 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
Yes I did miss it. Thanks.
hmmm Unfortunately this one violates what you can have in a note - because of the way the second sentence is written. it makes statements and judgements. This would constitute extending or restricting the definition. Notes can only explain what the definition already says.
but I think it can easily be fixed with a tweak.
(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.
So far this is OK - because it is based on the definition and shows how to understand that. Though it is close. To really work the definition of software would have to say that its components are not documents. But I think you can slip this by.
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>).
This gets a bit declarative rather than deductive. But I think it can be fixed with a slight word change.
Because those files are just parts of the software (or updates to it) any "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user" from such files, is just another part of the content<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> that occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software).
so it would read
(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. Because those files are just part of the software (or updates to parts of it) any "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user" from such files, is just another part of the content<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> that occurs in the software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other content that is part of the software).
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 6, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
Gregg,
You don't have my "last one". It was at the bottom of David's re-posting if my message. I reproduce it here:
(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>).
And I reproduce the question I asked at the bottom of that message:
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)?
Regards,
Peter (who is returning to his vacation...)
On Jul 6, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>> wrote:
David
here is the last one from Peter I think
(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 like it.
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 6, 2013, at 7:43 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
Peter's last one works for me also, but needs mention of documents, I'd say
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 constitute or contribute to content<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> that occurs in non-webdocuments<http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_document> or software<http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict-def_software>. (to which WCAG2ICT apply).
Cheers
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>
From: Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<http://castle-consult.com/>]
Sent: July-05-13 10:08 PM
To: David MacDonald; Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Peter Korn; Loďc Martínez Normand; 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
Peter's latest proposal works very well for me.
Best regards
Mike
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: 06 July 2013 01:01
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Peter Korn; Michael Pluke; Loďc Martínez Normand; 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
This Doesn't work for me... Lacks explicitness....however you're last one does, as does Peter's most recent
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-07-05, at 3:54 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>> wrote:
AH
my email crossed Peters.
I think this note from Peter also hits the mark
in fact I think this one is better. Spot on actually.
(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.
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 5, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hi Mike, all,
If I'm counting noses properly, Mike's proposed text works for Mike, Loďc, 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
CanAdapt 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'; 'Loďc Martínez Normand'; 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
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<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 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; 'Loďc 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
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>
From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
Sent: July-04-13 2:11 PM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: 'Michael Pluke'; 'Loďc 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
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>
From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
Sent: July-04-13 1:19 PM
To: Michael Pluke
Cc: Loďc 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 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 Loďc 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 Loďc'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: Loďc 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,
Loďc
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<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 <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
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>
From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
Sent: July-03-13 6:59 PM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<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 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 "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
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loďc 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_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
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 18:20:12 UTC