- From: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:02:07 -0500
- To: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFA4D56A3F.F7C14BA1-ON86257BA2.0057CCBE-86257BA2.005815F2@us.ibm.com>
Wow, I go on vacation for a few days and my inbox has kept me busy all
morning. Appreciate everyone's efforts to clarify the new note. The latest
edit (V17) looks good to me.
Best regards,
Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Research ► Human Ability & Accessibility Center
11501 Burnet Road, Bldg. 904 Office 5D017, Austin, Texas 78758
512-286-9698 T/L 363-9698
maryjom@us.ibm.com
www.ibm.com/able and w3.ibm.com/able
IBM Accessibility on Facebook ▼ IBMAccess on Twitter ▼ IBM Accessibility on
LinkedIn
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader.” ~ John Quincy Adams
From: Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>,
Cc: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org"
<public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Date: 07/08/2013 04:14 AM
Subject: 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 that occurs in software and is
covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the 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
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> 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".
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", 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>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
<green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed
to developing practices and products that help
protect the environment
--
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
<Mail Attachment.gif> Oracle is committed to developing
practices and products that help protect the environment
--
<oracle_sig_logo.gif>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
<green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing
practices and products that help protect the environment
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loïc Martínez-Normand
DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo
28660 Boadilla del Monte
Madrid
---------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es
tfno: +34 91 336 74 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 16:19:51 UTC