- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 19:06:38 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51DA1EAE.6090501@oracle.com>
Gregg,
OK, I now understand your concern about the trojan horse. Would you
object to making clear that while the "file containing any embedded
documents" isn't itself /a document/, any "embedded documents" remain
documents?
Your "new" v14a doesn't address the issues I raised with your "old" v14
(which you deleted form the page, alas...). Namely:
1. It retains the "because" in the 2nd sentence, which is essentially
another conditional.
2. It retains "intended to only serve as part of the software and are
generated or controlled by the software creator" first sentence
conditional.
I cited problems with both of those, and you aren't responding to them.
Please do so.
Here is my attempt to address the "trojan horse problem" you cite below
(version 16 on the page):
(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, is just another part of the content that occurs in software
and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software.IN
RARE CASES, *these files may contain one or more embedded documents,
and the embedded documents are documents under this definition.*THE
RETRIEVED CONTENT IS AN EMBEDDED DOCUMENT, AND SHOULD THAT OCCUR, IT
BECOMES A DOCUMENT ONCE EXTRACTED.
I remove the notion of it "becoming a document once extracted". Embedded
documents are documents, period. I'll leave it up to Microsoft
Sharepoint or any other document control/management system to handle the
edge case of the storage of embedded documents looking nothing like
documents while stored within them.
Peter
On 7/7/2013 6:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> to simplify-- I removed all my previous versions -- since they are
> overcome by improvements. I just left the final one 14a (which by
> the way now contains databases.
>
>
> The problem with versions that don't have the provisionals -- is that
> they allow a company to ship documents in a file structure- and they
> would pass without having to be accessible. It is sold this way --
> and when the user pulls the docs out - they suddenly become docs and
> fail -- and it is the user that is the one who "made them into a doc"
> so they are responsible for accessibility....
>
>
> I think 14a - which contains database and avoids the problem David
> raised - might do the trick
>
> take a look. (this is posted on the page as you asked)
>
>
> v14a: Gregg Vanderheiden new proposal 7July13 11:28am PT [with
> addition of "program databases or" (attempting to address
> issues of Mike, Peter and David)
>
>
> (New) Note 3: Software configuration and storage files whose
> contents are intended to only serve as part of the software
> and are generated or controlled by the software creator,
> such as [program databases or] 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 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 7, 2013, at 8:47 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com
> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi gang,
>>
>> I'm back home from my vacation, and I'm trying to make sense of - by
>> my count - 15 distinct proposals for how to phrase Note 3! I find
>> that understanding them all by going through the e-mails for them all
>> nearly impossible, so I've tried to capture them all, in
>> chronological order (as they appeared in my inbox) at the bottom of
>> our existing wiki page New Note 3 for definition of "document"
>> <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/new-note-for-definition-of-document>.
>>
>> I believe there are 4 "latest" proposals on the table. In
>> chronological order, they are (grossly paraphrased):
>>
>> * v7 from Peter Korn: a marrying of Mike's earlier proposal with
>> text that I thought David liked
>> * v8 from David MacDonald: edit to Peter's v7 that satisfies him
>> * v13 from Mike Pluke: drops "database" from the set of examples,
>> and follow's Gregg's approach with the conditional "because those
>> files are part of software... they are covered by WCAG2ICT"
>> * v14 from Gregg Vanderheiden (which is chronologically earlier,
>> but I suspect due to e-mail crossing may be "later" than Mike's):
>> drops "database" from the set of examples (like Mike's) and also
>> rewrites the first sentence to add in "software creator"
>> authorship; keeps the same second sentence "because those files
>> are part of software" as above.
>>
>> I suggest that all further edits occur on this wiki page, with a note
>> as to which earlier variant they are an edit of, and how they are an
>> edit (visual change tracking of some sort). I think that may help us
>> all comprehend what each is proposing.
>>
>>
>> With that out of the way, here are my thoughts:
>>
>> 1. For somewhat obvious reasons, I'm not thrilled with dropping
>> "database" from the examples. They are a very important file
>> type, and I believe they will too easily be confused by folks as
>> being documents. I want to see "databases" included in the list
>> of examples.
>>
>> 2. From variant 9 onward (last ~36 hours of proposals from Gregg &
>> Mike), the second sentence introduces a conditional, and all
>> variants of this conditional appear to be some iteration of:
>> "Because those files are just part of the software...'sensory
>> experience to be communicated to the user' from such files... is
>> covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software". I
>> think doing this as a conditional is a mistake. It doesn't
>> matter who created those files (a concept Gregg's variant 14
>> introduces). It doesn't matter if embedded in those files (e.g.
>> embedded in a database) is a document. All that matters is that
>> 'sensory experience to be communicated to the user' in such files
>> is clearly covered by WCAG2ICT, based on what it is when the user
>> interacts with it. If that 'sensory experience to be
>> communicated to the user' is expressed solely in the software UI,
>> it is covered by the software aspect of WCAG2ICT. If instead
>> that 'sensory experience to be communicated to the user' in such
>> files is an embedded document that gets extracted from such a
>> file, upon extraction it is a document and is covered by the
>> document aspect of WCAG2ICT (it was also a document when it was
>> inserted into that file). Therefore I think the conditional is a
>> mistake and we shouldn't have that in our text.
>>
>> 3. Gregg's variant 14 further limits the examples of the first
>> sentence based on "software creator intent", which adds a lot of
>> ambiguity to the note (how do we discern that these files "are
>> intended to only server as part of software"? - ask the author
>> about this for each and every file that accompanies some
>> software?). I think this is a big mistake and we should avoid
>> that approach.
>>
>>
>> I have just added variant #15 to the wiki page. It starts with the
>> "variant 7/8" first sentence, listing the set of example files
>> without any conditionals or "software creator intent", and it
>> includes databases. I marry this in the second sentence with the
>> Mike/Gregg latest variant that the "information and sensory
>> experience to be communicated to the user" from such files, is just
>> another part of the content that occurs in software and is covered by
>> WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software. Finally I add a new
>> sentence of my own designed to directly address David's concerns: IN
>> RARE CASES, THE RETRIEVED CONTENT IS AN EMBEDDED DOCUMENT, AND SHOULD
>> THAT OCCUR, IT BECOMES A DOCUMENT ONCE EXTRACTED.
>>
>> This new sentence not only covers the database case, but also the
>> virtual machine hard drive file, etc. It covers "user-generated"
>> content as well as "software creator content" (and covers this no
>> matter what the "intent" of the author of the content was).
>>
>> Here is the fully proposal/variant #15:
>>
>> (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, is just another part of the content that
>> occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other
>> parts of the software.IN RARE CASES, THE RETRIEVED CONTENT IS AN
>> EMBEDDED DOCUMENT, AND SHOULD THAT OCCUR, IT BECOMES A DOCUMENT
>> ONCE EXTRACTED.
>>
>>
>> How does this work for everyone? I would very much appreciate it if
>> responders would do two things:
>>
>> 1. Append any new variants you propose to the bottom of New Note 3
>> for definition of "document"
>> <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/new-note-for-definition-of-document>,
>> noting who you are, what variant your new proposal is derived
>> from, and how it is different.
>> 2. Offer in e-mail your critique of my proposal #15 (if you "can't
>> live with it"), so I can understand why you reject it and what
>> your counter-proposal is trying to achieve relative to what I
>> proposed. I hope I managed to do that in this e-mail...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>>
>> <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
>
--
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 Monday, 8 July 2013 02:07:16 UTC