Thread Subject: Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform"

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 11:10 PM

Web browsers.

You include them as platform in a note (3) - but not in the language of the
definition. If they aren't platform by the definition language they can't be
made into platform in a note. Notes can explain but not extend or limit
the definition.

I don't have a religious thing about this so you can define it as you like.
I was just trying to make it clean and point out the inconsistency. If you
still have questions I suggest we take it off list to resolve since I think
we are both in the same place but just trying to work out consistent
wording. Don't want to use up listserve bandwidth on wordsmithing where
both people agree on desired outcome.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 11:26 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Concerns about our current
> definition of a"platform"
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> I know that Sean had some concerns about the platform
> definition, and I believe language around isolation and the
> explicit note about browser plug-ins not constituting a
> platform came from him. When you say "partially", you open
> potentially a big hole, sweeping into the platform
> definitions things that only vaguely partially provide some
> software components/services but that really shouldn't be
> seen as a platform. By doing so, you subject a lot more
> things to the platform rule(s) for which I think they really
> shouldn't apply.
>
> Can you provide some specific examples of things you feel are
> platforms, that can only be considered platforms with your
> language additions?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>
> > Yes - I did edit old version.
> >
> > Nope - not intentional.
> >
> > Comments below. (marked GV:)
> >
> > Gregg
> >
> > -- ------------------------------
> >
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> >
> > > Of Peter Korn
> >
> > > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:55 PM
> >
> > > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Concerns about our current
> >
> > > definition of a"platform"
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Gregg,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > You provided edits to the version in the 17Aug draft, not to
> >
> > > the proposal I put forth. Was that your intention?
> >
> > GV: Yes I did - but not intentionally.
> >
> > The key
> >
> > > for me is what the platform provides that defines it as a
> >
> > > platform (with what the bulk of applications use cementing
> >
> > > that definition or countering it).
> >
> > GV: Agree
> >
> > With such a definition,
> >
> > > we can then place requirements on anything that is a platform
> >
> > > (by that definition).
> >
> > GV: Don't follow that. What I edited into the provision was just an
> > admission that some things serve as partial platforms. And
> that is in
> > note 3
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Going into "partially", and "acting as", and "for those
> >
> > > aspects of an application" complicates matters significantly.
> >
> > > And I don't see what we gain by doing that. If something is
> >
> > > trying to be a platform, then it should obey the platform rules.
> >
> > >
> >
> > GV: Again - don't follow. Your note 3 below says the same
> thing. But
> > by not having anything to that effect in the provision - the note
> > contradicts the provision.
> >
> > Your new draft is below -- with edits
> >
> > *Platform software*:
> >
> > collection of software components that runs on an
> underlying software or
> >
> > hardware layer, and that provides a set of software services to
> >
> > applications which allows them to be isolated, partially or
> > completely, from the underlying software or hardware layer.
> >
> > * Note 1: For our purposes, it is those software components/services
> >
> > provided to applications for the creation or manipulation of user
> >
> > interfaces and user input - and that impact accessibility - that are
> >
> > of concern for whether something is a platform or not. An
> >
> > application offering a compute service, such as a 3d rendering
> >
> > engine where a requesting application isn't using the software
> >
> > components/services to create a user interface and interact with
> >
> > the user, should not be considered to be acting as a "platform".
> >
> > * Note 2: If applications typically connect directly to the
> >
> > underlying layer, rather than relying solely on the platform
> >
> > software components and services, then it is likely that the
> >
> > software components in the middle are not acting as a "platform".
> >
> > For example, a program which hosts plug-in's is not a platform if
> >
> > the plug-in can directly access the underlying layer.
> >
> > * Note 3: A particular software component may play the role of a
> >
> > platform in some situations and not in others. Platforms can
> >
> > include such things as Internet browsers, operating systems,
> >
> > plug-ins to internet browsers or other software applications, and
> >
> > under some situations, byte-code interpreted virtual environments,
> >
> > and other "programming within another programming" environments.
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> >

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University