- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:47:33 -0700
- To: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
- CC: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51DB0945.9020708@oracle.com>
Great! With Alex chiming in, I think we pretty much have everyone on the TF who has been engaged in the last several months weighing in (save Judy and Andi). Given that, I am going to alter the wiki page to show ONLY version 17, in context with the definition, and point to that page in my WCAG WG survey feedback, to maximize the number of folks who can read it in context ahead of discussion tomorrow. And again, I invite everyone on the TF who is available to join the WCAG WG meeting tomorrow. Regards, Peter On 7/8/2013 11:34 AM, Alex Li wrote: > While I think the last sentence puts the note at risk of a loop and > that the note actually modifies, instead of clarifies, the definition, > I can live with the proposal. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Mary Jo Mueller <mailto:maryjom@us.ibm.com> > Sent: 7/8/2013 9:21 > To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Starting a new thread - re: Note 3 for definition of > "document" > > 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_ <mailto:hnielsen@us.ibm.com> > > _www.ibm.com/able_ and _w3.ibm.com/able__ > __IBM Accessibility_ <http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility> on > Facebook ▼ _IBMAccess_ <http://twitter.com/IBMAccess> on Twitter ▼ > _IBM Accessibility_ <http://www.linkedin.com/e/vgh/2419815/> on LinkedIn/ > “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and > become more, you are a leader.” ~ John Quincy Adams/ > > Inactive hide details for Loïc Martínez Normand ---07/08/2013 04:14:22 > AM---Dear all, You guys have made an amazing amount of eLoïc Martínez > Normand ---07/08/2013 04:14:22 AM---Dear all, You guys have made an > amazing amount of effort for working on note 3! This > > 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_ <mailto: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_ > <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 9:29 PM, Peter Korn <_peter.korn@oracle.com_ > <mailto: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_ > <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): > o v7 from Peter Korn: a marrying of Mike's > earlier proposal with text that I thought > David liked > o v8 from David MacDonald: edit to Peter's v7 > that satisfies him > o 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" > o 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 > > > -- _ > __<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 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_ <tel:+1%20650%205069522> > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065_ > __<green-for-email-sig_0.gif>_ > <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to > developing practices and products that help protect the > environment > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Loïc Martínez-Normand > DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid > Campus de Montegancedo > 28660 Boadilla del Monte > Madrid > --------------------------------------------------------------- > e-mail: _loic@fi.upm.es_ <mailto:loic@fi.upm.es> > tfno: +34 91 336 74 11 > --------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 18:48:11 UTC