Re: Two variants for the redefinition of "accessibility services of software"

 

On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> Hi gang
>  
> Given my issues with the definitions in #3b expressed in my other email, I would strongly favour definition #3a.

GV: Agree,  it is probably more straightforward and gets away from definitions that require other definitions to understand.

If we use 3a then  we have the following edit to make  IN RED ALL CAP  since user agent appears (properly) in the list - and software doesn’t use a user agent to expose information..    (also we need to cover the non-web document case).

This would do it in one neat definition. 


accessibility services of platform software
The term accessibility services platform software, as used in WCAG2ICT, has the meaning below:

accessibility services of platform software
services provided by an operating system, other platform software, or a user agent that are used by software OR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS  to expose information about the user interface and events to assistive technologies

Note: These services are commonly provided in the form of accessibility APIs (application programming interfaces), and they provide two-way communication with assistive technologies, including exposing information about objects and events.




>  
> Whereas #3b gets me into an area where I begin to have doubts, I can be 100% behind what is said in definition #3a and am fully in favour of the notes that accompany the “platform software” and "accessibility services of platform software" definitions. I can subscribe to this total package without a hint of fuzziness and doubt (I particularly like the “which is a kind of platform software” description of user agent). Maybe this might apply to other readers.
>  
> I have to say that I am not a great believer in the WCAG2ICT draft being used as a teaching aid!
GV: Actually - the whole document is a teaching aid isn't it?   (But I get what you mean)  

> There are many other things out there that probably do that job a lot more effectively than us playing around with more complex definitions that we seem tempted to stray into.
> I really think we should try to keep things simple to avoid raising issues that are not directly related to what our draft is supposed to be about. It would be very annoying to generate controversy or debate on an issue that is not 100% related to our task.
GV:  agree
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mike
>  
> From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
> Sent: 05 June 2013 01:47
> To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Two variants for the redefinition of "accessibility services of software"
>  
> Hi gang,
> 
> Coming out of our last meeting on 31June13, I have taken a whack at redefining "accessibility services of software" to make more central the concept that this is about platform software, and not all software generally.
> 
> Please see Proposal #3 at New glossary term "accessibility services of software and assistive technology"
> 
> In particular, please see both Variant #3a in which I keep our existing definition text, but simply change the title of the term to "accessibility services of platform software"; and then see Variant #3b in which I introduce yet another new term: "platform software", when I then leverage in next text for the retitled term "accessibility services of platform software".
> 
> Fundamentally Variant #3a is the more minimal / less invasive change, while Variant #3b makes fuller use of the "teachable moment" that our Technical Report affords us.  Please also note the section For reference, from ISO 13066-1 at the bottom of that wiki page, from which I draw on (but do not expressly mimic) that ISO text.  While it is somewhat tempting to lift definitions word for word from ISO 13066-1, those definitions leverage terms & concentps that have slightly different existing definitions in WCAG 2.0 (e.g. AT), and I am also unclear on whether such copying is of a copyright ISO standard is OK in a non-ISO document such as our TR.
> 
> Below both variants on the wiki page please see "Edits to other terms common to both Variants #3a and #3b" where I show show how the new term "accessibility services of platform software" would impact our two glossary terms "programmatically set" and "programmatically determined", as well as Principal 4 and Guideline 4.1 (the change is the same under both variants).
> 
> 
> I personally don't have a strong preference between Variant #3a and Variant #3b - different things attract me to each of them.  I solicit comments / feedback on them, ahead of a formal survey (perhaps tomorrow?) ahead of our Friday meeting.  I suggest we survey both approaches (as well as the follow-on edits to those two terms, the principal, and the guideline).
> 
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> <image001.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
> <image002.gif>Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment