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

Gregg,

Let me try this another way:

Software contains at least logic statements - things like "if-then".  
Software processes input, generates output.  In contrast, markup (like 
HTML, which some people call "code" but I would simply say "is an 
encoding") doesn't contain such logic.  It doesn't actually process 
input.  It isn't the thing that /generates /the output (it may /be /the 
output, but that is different).

So: if something is software - e.g. Javascript in a web application - 
then it is software.  It is covered by the existing text.  If something 
is NOT software - e.g. a static web page - then it is /only/ a document 
(with whatever markup), and so it is /only /the user agent that is 
taking advantage of "accessibility services" or "other software APIs".

Make sense?


Also, I disagree with your statement below. /All /software does in fact 
make use of some form of platform services.  Even software that only 
calculates the Fibonacci series and prints the result or writes it to a 
file.  It is using /some /platform service to print the result, to 
open/write to the file.  In fact, /even software that does no i/o /is 
using some platform service /just to be loaded into memory/.  Many kinds 
of software don't have a visual UI (daemon services for example), and so 
aren't covered by WCAG2ICT and don't have any reason to use platform 
accessibility services.  But they all use some kind of platform 
non-accessibility service.


As to "pure HTML/markup" documents that have form fields: again, there 
is no /logic /there.  The user agent does the logic. The user agent 
notices the click (or <ENTER>) on the "submit" button, etc.  If you 
really want to push things and say that the markup contains /some /logic 
(mapping the submit button to a particular new URL so that the "if-then" 
of "if click then go to page" logic is in the markup), I'll grant you an 
edge case.  But again, there is so little logic there, and the HTML 
isn't /actively/ utilizing any accessibility APIs, etc.  I find this a 
much cleaner distinction to make.

Note by the way, we had /this same /problem/discussion in TEITAC.


Peter

On 6/5/2013 8:31 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> Not ALL non-web documents do  (and not ALL Software makes use of 
> platform services).   But since SOME do , it needs to be in the 
> definition - No? .
>
>  If you want to put SOME in front of  non-web documents  and MOST in 
> front of software that is fine. But not necessary.
>
> Actually don't most ALL non-web documents that have user interface 
> components in them expose them through user agent services?   Doesn’t 
> all AT access the content via the user agent ?  (or can they access 
> content on non-web documents that are not opened in a user agent?)
>
>
> /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 Jun 5, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com 
> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> Wading in...
>>
>> While I see many (though not all) user agents as being platforms 
>> (hence Note 1 in platform software), I don't see all (or even most) 
>> documents as utilizing "a set of software services".  Since software 
>> services are APIs, and it is programming code that invokes APIs, 
>> documents that don't contain programming code (e.g. a simple text 
>> document) by definition cannot use those APIs, and so by definition 
>> don't use software services.
>>
>> Recall the WCAG2ICT definition of user agent 
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#keyterms_ua> - it is the thing that 
>> "retrieves and presents documents".  That thing clearly parses the 
>> documents - gets whatever markup is in them, etc. - and then utilizes 
>> the accessibility services of the platform underneath it. Where that 
>> user agent is also a platform (Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, a 
>> web browser running Javascript code, a Java runtime), it also is a 
>> platform.  But Notepad and Wordpad aren't platforms.  They are, 
>> however, by our definition, user agents.
>>
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>>
>> Given that, I would not insert the text "non-Web documents" as Gregg 
>> is proposing.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 6/5/2013 7:50 AM, Michael Pluke wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess conceptually from a WCAG point of view that is the case.
>>>
>>> It seems that I have a persistent problem seeing how lines of code 
>>> in document (e.g. Web page, word doc) can, *in reality*, do anything 
>>> like “expose information”. To me it is clear that it is the user 
>>> agent that takes the web page/document and “exposes information 
>>> about the user interface (as encoded in the page/document) to 
>>> assistive technologies.” Although conceptually the user agent may 
>>> offer its services to the document, I still struggle to see what a 
>>> document, or anything else that is not software, can *do* with this 
>>> offer. Surely only software can actually *do* things – and that is 
>>> why all documents need a user agent *to do things*.
>>>
>>> But I guess I will have to learn to live with this conceptual myopia 
>>> (if that is what it is) – as long as everyone else is comfortable 
>>> with what you have written. Certainly your text is simple and clear.
>>>
>>> I would still prefer to see the notes in their original order.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
>>> *Sent:* 05 June 2013 15:14
>>> *To:* Michael Pluke
>>> *Cc:* Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: Two variants for the redefinition of "accessibility 
>>> services of software"
>>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:07 AM, Michael Pluke 
>>> <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com 
>>> <mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m not so certain whether this addition is needed. In my mind it is 
>>> always software that actually uses the services that the platform 
>>> provides. In the case of non-web documents I see it as being the 
>>> user agent that uses the services to “expose information about the 
>>> user interface to assistive technologies”. So I do not see that it 
>>> is necessary to add non-web documents to the first definition. For 
>>> the second it is more complex as I see the user agent using the 
>>> services to expose information about the user interface of both the 
>>> user agent AND the document to assistive technologies. In this case 
>>> it might be OK to stick with Peter’s original wording or it might be 
>>> necessary to craft something much more complex.
>>>
>>> Did you not see that USER AGENT is an example of platform?
>>>
>>> All browsers are platforms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I realise that I am far less experienced at interpreting the 
>>> underlying WCAG 2.0 model of content and user agents, so I accept 
>>> that my interpretation may be wrong – but I think that expert eyes 
>>> need to look again at Peter’s original definitions and Gregg’s 
>>> amendments.
>>>
>>> In either case I do not think that reversing the notes as Gregg has 
>>> done adds clarity to the original (it either has no effect or, in my 
>>> view, makes it marginally less good).
>>>
>>> In constructing the survey I will point to the place where Peter has 
>>> written the original proposals. If we can resolve some alternative 
>>> text before the survey is sent out, then this text needs to be 
>>> changed (preferably by Peter or Gregg who are adept with editing the 
>>> wiki).
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu 
>>> <http://trace.wisc.edu/>]
>>> *Sent:*05 June 2013 04:27
>>> *To:*Peter Korn
>>> *Cc:*public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
>>> *Subject:*Re: Two variants for the redefinition of "accessibility 
>>> services of software"
>>>
>>> very nice
>>>
>>> only one thing I think needs to be fixed.
>>>
>>> You discuss user agents as an example but don't have  non-web 
>>> documents anywhere in either.
>>>
>>> also
>>>
>>> Below are the same text with NON WEB DOCUMENTS in the correct places
>>>
>>> Because both notes contain User agents and virtual machines -- I 
>>> think it reads better to reverse them (as shown below) (I didn’t fix 
>>> the note numbering so you can see the switch)
>>>
>>> Very nice
>>>
>>> gregg
>>>
>>>
>>>       platform software
>>>
>>> The term *platform software*, as used in WCAG2ICT, has the meaning 
>>> below:
>>>
>>> *platform software*
>>>
>>> collection of software components that run on an underlying software 
>>> or hardware layer, and that provides a set of software services to 
>>> applications OR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS that allow them to be isolated 
>>> from the underlying software or hardware layer
>>>
>>> *Note 2:* Sometimes platform software is also a software application 
>>> (e.g. a user agent or a virtual machine).
>>>
>>> *Note 1: *Examples of platform software include operating systems, 
>>> user agents, and virtual machines.
>>>
>>>
>>>       accessibility services of platform software
>>>
>>> The term *accessibility services of platform software*, as used in 
>>> WCAG2ICT, has the meaning below:
>>>
>>> *accessibility services of platform software*
>>>
>>> services provided by *platform software *that are used by 
>>> software OR NON-WEB DOCUMENTS to expose information about the user 
>>> interface to assistive technologies
>>>
>>> *Note 1: *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.
>>>
>>> *Note 2:**Platform software* that is also an application may simply 
>>> expose the accessibility services of the underlying platform layer, 
>>> rather expose its own set of accessibility services.  Alternately it 
>>> may translate between the set it exposes and those of the underlying 
>>> platform layer.
>>>
>>> /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 Jun 4, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com 
>>> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 seeProposal #3 at New glossary term "accessibility services 
>>> of software and assistive technology" 
>>> <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/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
>>>
>>> --
>>> <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
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing 
>> practices and products that help protect the environment
>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif><green-for-email-sig_0.gif>
>

-- 
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