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

This is just talking about pieces of a software program.  If you break them out of the program - or you have an update (a piece of a program) It doesn’t become a document. 

Documents can have code in them.    


Can you tell us more what the concern is?   



Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
 

On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:11 PM, "Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov> wrote:

> I too have been quiet for some time, but have been actively observing.
>  
> Can someone discuss if this inadvertently eliminates document templates and Macros from needing to meet accessibility requirements?
>  
> Pierce
>  
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov] 
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 8:19 AM
> To: Loïc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Starting a new thread - re: Note 3 for definition of "document"
>  
> Hi all:
> I have been quiet for a long time due to change in job, but that is back to original status.
> As an explanatory guide to clarify scoping for electronic documents this note works well for me. 
>  
> Allen Hoffman
> Department of homeland Security
> Office of Accessible Systems and Technology
>  
>  
> From: Loïc Martínez Normand [mailto:loic@fi.upm.es] 
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 5:14 AM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> 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 ingreen 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:
> It retains the "because" in the 2nd sentence, which is essentially another conditional.
> 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:
> 
> 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.
> >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.
> 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:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------