Re: Starting a new thread - re: Note 3 for definition of "document"

Dear all,

You guys have made an amazing amount of effort for working on note 3! This
week-end I've been out of Internet connection and I haven't been able to
participate in the discussion.

I can say that I like a lot version #17 of the note in the Wiki page. Good
work!

Best regards,

Loïc


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>wrote:

> Looks great Peter.
>
> Thanks for your perseverance.
>
> To facilitate screen reader users - here is a clean copy of it for your
> review and comment -
>
> Everyone -- if this looks good to everyone we can add this to the agenda
> for the WCAG meeting on Tuesday and have it make the next release of
> WCAG2ICT.
>
> If you see a major problem - please speak up and propose a solution.
>
> If this looks good - or pretty good - then lets get this in and out for
> comment as part of the WCAG2ICT  release.   Remember this is not the final
> version -- just the version for comments (as hopefully the last draft for
> comments).
>
> thanks
>
>
> (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, it is just another part of the *content* that
> occurs in *software* and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of
> the software.  Where such files contain one or more embedded documents, the
> embedded documents remain documents under this definition.
>
>
>
> *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 9:29 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>  Gregg, David, All,
>
> After a quick call with Gregg, I think I have it.  Please let me know if
> this addresses all of your concerns (edit to my v15 shown in *green
> boldface*):
>
> (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, it is just another part of the content<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_content> that
> occurs in software <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_software> and
> is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#keyterms_software>
> . IN RARE CASES, these *Where such* files may contain one or more
> embedded documents,and the embedded documents are *remain *documents
> under this definition.
>
>
> This is version #17 on the wiki page.
>
>
> Peter
>
> On 7/7/2013 7:06 PM, Peter Korn wrote:
>
> 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<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 7, 2013, at 8:47 PM, Peter Korn <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 <+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
>
>
>
> --
> <Mail Attachment.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> <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 <+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
tfno: +34 91 336 74 11
---------------------------------------------------------------