- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 09:00:13 -0700
- To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
- CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51AF608D.9030802@oracle.com>
Mike, As I was finishing my reply, I saw yours. You are also capturing my thoughts. Stepping back - I don't see how any real situation isn't covered by WCAG2ICT. Where I see us getting bogged down is in the "teachable moment" aspects of this. And we are arguing over what might be a graduate course issue, working on aspects of something like differential manifolds (an evil graduate course I took at UCB) when regulators simply need to understand something at most at the level of algebra. This perhaps argues for variant #3a... Peter On 6/5/2013 8:54 AM, Michael Pluke wrote: > > Hi Peter and Gregg > > Peter had picked up on exactly the same point as me -- that it is > software that is actively doing things, not documents. However, I > totally agree with you Gregg when you say that "most ALL non-web > documents that have user interface components in them expose them > through user agent services". > > I think that the thing that is causing the problem is that adding > documents into the definition in the way that you say implies that it > is the document that is ACTIVELY USING the user agent services. I > think that my view (and perhaps Peter's) is that in reality: > > -the user agent (the active entity) parses the document (the passive > entity) and it uses its own (or lower level) services to ensure that > the document is presented in the way the encoding in the document > describes. > > The net result is the same, but the latter interpretation does not > stretch (my) credulity in seeing a basically passive thing like a > document actively using the services of its user agent. > > I'm wondering if we can slightly adapt the wording to overcome this > small (but to me very confusing) shift in perception? I'll give it > some thought. > > Best regards > > Mike > > *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] > *Sent:* 05 June 2013 16:32 > *To:* Peter Korn > *Cc:* Michael Pluke; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Two variants for the redefinition of "accessibility > services of software" > > 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 > <mailto: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 > > -- > > Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal > Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 > 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
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 16:01:11 UTC