- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:59:01 -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: <51AF7C65.3000003@oracle.com>
Mike,
I suggest the survey be:
* Look at Proposal #3 (in both variants)
* Among the variants:
o Prefer #3a; accept as-is
o Prefer #3a; accept with following changes
o Prefer #3b; accept as-is
o Prefer #3b; accept with following changes
o Don't have a preference; either fine as-is
o Don't like any of them
o [place to enter "following changes" text]
* Separate from the variants, looking at the places we use
"accessibility services":
o Accept the proposed changes to the 4 places we use
"accessibility services" as-is
o Accept the proposed changes to the 4 places we use
"accessibility services" with following changes
o Don't like this at all
o [place to enter "following changes" text]
That gives everyone space to record their thoughts, while in parallel we
discuss on mailing list.
Peter
On 6/5/2013 10:53 AM, Michael Pluke wrote:
>
> I am now finalising the survey for Friday. We are clearly not reaching
> consensus here at the moment. I have two options:
>
> -Omit this item from the survey and hope we achieve an internal
> consensus later -- and maybe issue a 2^nd one-item survey.
>
> -Proceed NOW with what we already have on the page that Peter wrote.
>
> -I prefer the latter option -- so I would like to cite that in the survey.
>
> In this case, as the one thing we seem to agree upon is that we all
> like some variant of #3a. I therefore propose that:
>
> - the page is renamed as "New glossary term "accessibility services of
> platform software"
>
> -The red title is changed to "Proposals #3: "accessibility services of
> platform software" (if we remove the 3a and 3b variants or, if we wish
> to retain those it will have to be "Proposal# 4" (I suggest we
> entirely forget the 3a/3b ideas)
>
> -In the text under that heading the second paragraph is removed
>
> -In the last paragraph the "In both cases," is removed and the final
> text in quotes in that paragraph is corrected to ""accessibility
> services of platform software".
>
> -Variant 3b is removed.
>
> Could you please make those changes Peter (I don't trust my Google
> Docs editing (non-)skills.
>
> Best regards
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* 05 June 2013 18:34
> *To:* Michael Pluke
> *Cc:* Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Two variants for the redefinition of "accessibility
> services of software"
>
> Mike, Gregg,
>
> I have some trouble by the "services ... used by ... non-Web
> documents", as that confers a level of agency that I don't see present
> in /non-software /documents.
>
> A DAISY book doesn't use the accessibility services in the DAISY
> reader. The DAISY reader extracts & displays the captions from the
> DAISY file. There is no code in a DAISY file. The captions are
> encoded in DAISY; they are extracted by the user agent (the DAISY
> player). An HTML5 player, complete with Javascript & perhaps other
> code, is software.
>
> Gregg - you write below: /A user agent is already "platform software"
> so we can't say "other platform software or user agents" /
>
> Where do we say this?
>
> We define user agent <http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#keyterms_ua> as
> "any software that retrieves and presents documents for users". So a
> user agent is software. But not all software is a platform.
>
> Some user agents are platforms, but not all. Notepad is a user agent
> (by our definition). How is it a platform?
>
>
> Peter
>
> On 6/5/2013 10:05 AM, Michael Pluke wrote:
>
> I think that I could live with your suggestion of:
>
> -services provided by an operating system, user agent, or other
> platform software that are used by software or non-web documents
> to expose information about the user interface and events to
> assistive technologies.
>
> It doesn't entirely avoid the issue of whether documents can
> actually do things like "using" something, but I think that the
> meaning of the above is definitely clear enough for me.
>
> Best regards
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
> *Sent:* 05 June 2013 17:21
> *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"
>
> hmmm
>
> I see where you are going -- and I kind of like it but I'm not
> sure what the SOFTWARE is that is right after "used by"
>
> What software is that? the user agent? then the user agent
> is providing the service to itself?
>
> I think the user agent provides the service to the non-web document.
>
> - for example - a daisy book (epub 3 book now) uses the
> accessibility services in the epub player to expose its captions
> (for captioned material) etc, and uses the Operating System
> accessibility services to have the book read aloud. (or
> actually the ebook may use the epub reader/player for everything
> and the epub reader may (or may not) make use of accessibility
> services in the OS (may not - because they may decide to do it
> all themselves).
>
> in any case, the ebook (a non-web document) is using the
> accessibility services of the reader (a user agent)
>
> the language for this would then be
>
> -services provided by an operating system or other platform
> software including user agents that are used by software or
> non-web documents to expose information about the user
> interface and events to assistive technologies
>
> or perhaps easier to read
>
> *-****services provided by an operating system, user agent, or
> other platform software that are used by software or non-web
> documents to expose information about the user interface and
> events to assistive technologies*
>
> **
>
> A user agent is already "platform software" so we can't say
> "other platform software or user agents" . That is like saying
> or other engineer or electrical engineer.
>
> Make sense?
>
> /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 12:09 PM, Michael Pluke
> <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com
> <mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Would the following, slightly more verbose, wording work for everyone?
>
> -services provided by an operating system, other platform
> software, or a user agent that are used by software to expose
> information about the user interface and events, of software or
> non-web documents, to assistive technologies
>
> &!
> nbsp;&nb sp;
>
> It is a little cumbersome and Peter might argue that the "of
> software or non-web documents" is not needed -- but it does at
> least address that software is the thing that uses services.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com <http://oracle.com>]
> *Sent:*05 June 2013 16:58
> *To:*Gregg Vanderheiden
> *Cc:*Michael Pluke;public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject:*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 ofuser 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>
>
> --
> <image001.gif> <http://www.oracle.com>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone:+1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> <image002.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is
> committed to developing practices and products that help protect
> the environment
>
> --
> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to
> developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>
--
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
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 17:59:51 UTC