Thread Subject: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 7:20 AM
Subject: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list recently about
whether or not we should merge Web and Software because the line
distinguishing the two is blurring. Indeed, this issue came up early in the
Web and Software subcommittee but we delayed any decision until we had done
the bottoms up analysis of the issues with the existing 508 provisions.

I think it is hard to put this issue to rest, one way or the other, until
we have looked at a proposal for merging the two. Otherwise, we are just
talking theory and we really don't know which is the better approach.

We have also been wrestling with the issue of applicability of the standard
based on how the content is accessed; that is, some interpret the current
508 standard to apply to HTML content only if it is accessed via the Web
but not if it is included as an attachment in an e-mail or stored on a CD.

As I looked at it this morning, I came to believe that we can't just merge
Web and software altogether but we might need to separate out the
provisions for simple content for "authors" who are not "programmers".

So I took a stab at it and then looked at how this would affect
harmonization with international standards, another of our goals.
Regardless of whether or not we choose to reorganize the provisions, we
have ended up with some country-unique requirements. If we don't
re-organize, we are fairly well harmonized with WCAG 2.0 but have some
issues with ISO. If we reorganize, we will have the same issues with ISO
harmonzation and more with WCAG 2.0.

Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting. I apologize
for sending this out so late because it is rather a lot to get through.

http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis

Andi

From: William Loughborough
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
> Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting. I apologize
> for sending this out so late because it is rather a lot to get through.
>
The over-riding factor in whether there are separate (but equal?)
considerations for accessibility in non-Web stuff is that we must keep
our eyes on the prize: comparable experiences for ALL users.

By finding excuses not to include some piece of software we open a door
to a slippery slope: e.g. what is a "simple link"; what are "authoring
tools" (perhaps almost everything)?

In each case where the choice is to exempt some entity from compliance
we must be very careful to examine the semantics: what do we mean by
"software" that merits exclusion from the same criteria of accessibility
as "Web content"?

Love.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

Some quick thoughts to toss on the list for others to consider when reading
it

- wouldn't some of the things in content have to also apply to software?

1) Contrast for example. In software there is something about "if color
settings" but what if there aren't color settings? Then no contrast?

2) Color is another


Perhaps we end up with

Content and Software guidelnes
Additional Software guidelines

Maybe we also have
(Additional content guidelines?)

Don't know. Just took a quick look. Can't join you today unfortunately.
Funding agency deadline.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:12 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and
> what is Webcontent?
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list
> recently about whether or not we should merge Web and
> Software because the line distinguishing the two is blurring.
> Indeed, this issue came up early in the Web and Software
> subcommittee but we delayed any decision until we had done
> the bottoms up analysis of the issues with the existing 508
> provisions.
>
> I think it is hard to put this issue to rest, one way or the
> other, until we have looked at a proposal for merging the
> two. Otherwise, we are just talking theory and we really
> don't know which is the better approach.
>
> We have also been wrestling with the issue of applicability
> of the standard based on how the content is accessed; that
> is, some interpret the current
> 508 standard to apply to HTML content only if it is accessed
> via the Web but not if it is included as an attachment in an
> e-mail or stored on a CD.
>
> As I looked at it this morning, I came to believe that we
> can't just merge Web and software altogether but we might
> need to separate out the provisions for simple content for
> "authors" who are not "programmers".
>
> So I took a stab at it and then looked at how this would
> affect harmonization with international standards, another of
> our goals.
> Regardless of whether or not we choose to reorganize the
> provisions, we have ended up with some country-unique
> requirements. If we don't re-organize, we are fairly well
> harmonized with WCAG 2.0 but have some issues with ISO. If we
> reorganize, we will have the same issues with ISO
> harmonzation and more with WCAG 2.0.
>
> Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting.
> I apologize for sending this out so late because it is rather
> a lot to get through.
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

Andi and all,

I've been a proponent of thinking of the Web provisions as a subset of Software provisions for a long time. I think there is utility and simplification to be gained that makes it easier to determine accessibility. I think it could improve accessibility in both areas.

An important issue to remember when considering "merging" Web and Software provisions is to always think of the web browser itself (a.k.a. "user agent") as software. Many times in discussions this is where communication on this issue breaks down. The web browser is indeed software, but the provisions are written in such a way that one can logically assign the Web standards to *web applications* that include browser interaction. The concept of a web application can further be considered to be simply the content rendered in the web browser, and perhaps not the browser itself. The Web standards reference to how plug-ins should behave (by referencing Software provisions) also leads the reader to thus think web content is not software.

Another important issue is there are specific techniques that still must be applied for web content. By example, we can question if based on the Software provisions, § 1194.21 (d; "...the information conveyed by the image must also be available in text.") and (f; "Textual information shall be provided through operating system functions for displaying text...."), would be equated to § 1194.22 (a; "A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided"). I think this is a clear example where the Software provisions cover more functionality, but the specifics of the Web provisions are more clear. We will still need to address technology specific techniques. Or perhaps think of them as something else altogether...

Based on the comparison of "text equivalents" versus "alt" tags alone, it should be considered that if we do merge Software and Web provisions, the issue of file formats will be raised. One could certainly see HTML as a file format. Making the abstraction of web content into a file format is not without it's own hazards (namely the arguments on both sides for validity and well-formed content) but does provide another abstraction that I think makes it easier to provide ongoing education for what is required for accessibility.

There are plenty of new questions that arise when we begin to explore this topic. Technologies that have been created since the standard that reside in the web browser (i.e., Flash, SVG) may be able to meet the Software provisions, but in ways the Assistive Technologies can not yet provide to the user. We've certainly seen this in the initial introduction of technology such as Flash and the Assistive Technologies have improved greatly as the technology itself has matured.

How will the assistive technology keep up? They must change and adapt to the change in technologies. Section 508 should be focused on setting out requirements for accessibility with little specifics (that is generically as possible) where those specific techniques are not required for accessibility. It is simply not our job to force technologies into existence by legal mandate. We are trying to craft an environment where anyone can create and share with everyone - as much as that is possible. It is difficult not to go on at length, but let me simply state that although we consider the environment we are in and the state of the assistive technology industries, we should simplify and combine the Web and Software provisions so that they will age gracefully and still apply to the technologies we will be using tomorrow that do not exist today.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi Snow-Weaver
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:12 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?



There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list recently about
whether or not we should merge Web and Software because the line
distinguishing the two is blurring. Indeed, this issue came up early in the
Web and Software subcommittee but we delayed any decision until we had done
the bottoms up analysis of the issues with the existing 508 provisions.

I think it is hard to put this issue to rest, one way or the other, until
we have looked at a proposal for merging the two. Otherwise, we are just
talking theory and we really don't know which is the better approach.

We have also been wrestling with the issue of applicability of the standard
based on how the content is accessed; that is, some interpret the current
508 standard to apply to HTML content only if it is accessed via the Web
but not if it is included as an attachment in an e-mail or stored on a CD.

As I looked at it this morning, I came to believe that we can't just merge
Web and software altogether but we might need to separate out the
provisions for simple content for "authors" who are not "programmers".

So I took a stab at it and then looked at how this would affect
harmonization with international standards, another of our goals.
Regardless of whether or not we choose to reorganize the provisions, we
have ended up with some country-unique requirements. If we don't
re-organize, we are fairly well harmonized with WCAG 2.0 but have some
issues with ISO. If we reorganize, we will have the same issues with ISO
harmonzation and more with WCAG 2.0.

Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting. I apologize
for sending this out so late because it is rather a lot to get through.

http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis

Andi

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what isWebcontent?

Interesting.


Maybe we have

1) content that does not include interaction beyond hypertext links.

2) software and interactive content.


This isn't really the right place to draw the line but you get the idea.


I was going to say "content where the author doesn?t create new interactive
elements" or something like that -- but new tools can allow an author to do
that (or to include them from the tool) without the author even knowing that
is what they did.

Very tough line to find.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:20 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software
> and what isWebcontent?
>
> Andi and all,
>
> I've been a proponent of thinking of the Web provisions
> as a subset of Software provisions for a long time. I think
> there is utility and simplification to be gained that makes
> it easier to determine accessibility. I think it could
> improve accessibility in both areas.
>
> An important issue to remember when considering
> "merging" Web and Software provisions is to always think of
> the web browser itself (a.k.a. "user agent") as software.
> Many times in discussions this is where communication on this
> issue breaks down. The web browser is indeed software, but
> the provisions are written in such a way that one can
> logically assign the Web standards to *web applications* that
> include browser interaction. The concept of a web application
> can further be considered to be simply the content rendered
> in the web browser, and perhaps not the browser itself. The
> Web standards reference to how plug-ins should behave (by
> referencing Software provisions) also leads the reader to
> thus think web content is not software.
>
> Another important issue is there are specific
> techniques that still must be applied for web content. By
> example, we can question if based on the Software provisions,
> § 1194.21 (d; "...the information conveyed by the image must
> also be available in text.") and (f; "Textual information
> shall be provided through operating system functions for
> displaying text...."), would be equated to § 1194.22 (a; "A
> text equivalent for every non-text element shall be
> provided"). I think this is a clear example where the
> Software provisions cover more functionality, but the
> specifics of the Web provisions are more clear. We will still
> need to address technology specific techniques. Or perhaps
> think of them as something else altogether...
>
> Based on the comparison of "text equivalents" versus
> "alt" tags alone, it should be considered that if we do merge
> Software and Web provisions, the issue of file formats will
> be raised. One could certainly see HTML as a file format.
> Making the abstraction of web content into a file format is
> not without it's own hazards (namely the arguments on both
> sides for validity and well-formed content) but does provide
> another abstraction that I think makes it easier to provide
> ongoing education for what is required for accessibility.
>
> There are plenty of new questions that arise when we
> begin to explore this topic. Technologies that have been
> created since the standard that reside in the web browser
> (i.e., Flash, SVG) may be able to meet the Software
> provisions, but in ways the Assistive Technologies can not
> yet provide to the user. We've certainly seen this in the
> initial introduction of technology such as Flash and the
> Assistive Technologies have improved greatly as the
> technology itself has matured.
>
> How will the assistive technology keep up? They must
> change and adapt to the change in technologies. Section 508
> should be focused on setting out requirements for
> accessibility with little specifics (that is generically as
> possible) where those specific techniques are not required
> for accessibility. It is simply not our job to force
> technologies into existence by legal mandate. We are trying
> to craft an environment where anyone can create and share
> with everyone - as much as that is possible. It is difficult
> not to go on at length, but let me simply state that although
> we consider the environment we are in and the state of the
> assistive technology industries, we should simplify and
> combine the Web and Software provisions so that they will age
> gracefully and still apply to the technologies we will be
> using tomorrow that do not exist today.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Norman B. Robinson
> Section 508 Coordinator
> IT Governance, US Postal Service
> phone: 202.268.8246
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:12 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and
> what is Webcontent?
>
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list
> recently about whether or not we should merge Web and
> Software because the line distinguishing the two is blurring.
> Indeed, this issue came up early in the Web and Software
> subcommittee but we delayed any decision until we had done
> the bottoms up analysis of the issues with the existing 508
> provisions.
>
> I think it is hard to put this issue to rest, one way or the
> other, until we have looked at a proposal for merging the
> two. Otherwise, we are just talking theory and we really
> don't know which is the better approach.
>
> We have also been wrestling with the issue of applicability
> of the standard based on how the content is accessed; that
> is, some interpret the current
> 508 standard to apply to HTML content only if it is accessed
> via the Web but not if it is included as an attachment in an
> e-mail or stored on a CD.
>
> As I looked at it this morning, I came to believe that we
> can't just merge Web and software altogether but we might
> need to separate out the provisions for simple content for
> "authors" who are not "programmers".
>
> So I took a stab at it and then looked at how this would
> affect harmonization with international standards, another of
> our goals.
> Regardless of whether or not we choose to reorganize the
> provisions, we have ended up with some country-unique
> requirements. If we don't re-organize, we are fairly well
> harmonized with WCAG 2.0 but have some issues with ISO. If we
> reorganize, we will have the same issues with ISO
> harmonzation and more with WCAG 2.0.
>
> Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting.
> I apologize for sending this out so late because it is rather
> a lot to get through.
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

Gregg,

You must have missed the introductory text to the software provisions that
said software must also consider both the General and the Content
provisions.

Andi




Gregg
Vanderheiden
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = To
u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
Sent by: Subcommittee'"
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc

Subject
07/11/2007 11:01 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging
AM Web and Software and what is
Webcontent?

Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>






Some quick thoughts to toss on the list for others to consider when reading
it

- wouldn't some of the things in content have to also apply to software?

1) Contrast for example. In software there is something about "if color
settings" but what if there aren't color settings? Then no contrast?

2) Color is another


Perhaps we end up with

Content and Software guidelnes
Additional Software guidelines

Maybe we also have
(Additional content guidelines?)

Don't know. Just took a quick look. Can't join you today unfortunately.
Funding agency deadline.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:12 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and
> what is Webcontent?
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list
> recently about whether or not we should merge Web and
> Software because the line distinguishing the two is blurring.
> Indeed, this issue came up early in the Web and Software
> subcommittee but we delayed any decision until we had done
> the bottoms up analysis of the issues with the existing 508
> provisions.
>
> I think it is hard to put this issue to rest, one way or the
> other, until we have looked at a proposal for merging the
> two. Otherwise, we are just talking theory and we really
> don't know which is the better approach.
>
> We have also been wrestling with the issue of applicability
> of the standard based on how the content is accessed; that
> is, some interpret the current
> 508 standard to apply to HTML content only if it is accessed
> via the Web but not if it is included as an attachment in an
> e-mail or stored on a CD.
>
> As I looked at it this morning, I came to believe that we
> can't just merge Web and software altogether but we might
> need to separate out the provisions for simple content for
> "authors" who are not "programmers".
>
> So I took a stab at it and then looked at how this would
> affect harmonization with international standards, another of
> our goals.
> Regardless of whether or not we choose to reorganize the
> provisions, we have ended up with some country-unique
> requirements. If we don't re-organize, we are fairly well
> harmonized with WCAG 2.0 but have some issues with ISO. If we
> reorganize, we will have the same issues with ISO
> harmonzation and more with WCAG 2.0.
>
> Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting.
> I apologize for sending this out so late because it is rather
> a lot to get through.
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what isWebcontent?

Gregg wrote:

>Maybe we have

>1) content that does not include interaction beyond hypertext links.

>2) software and interactive content.

which is exactly the distinction I tried to make in the analysis.

Andi

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what isWebcontent?

I'd like to ffer that the entire of equivelance where content is concerned
is gapfull. I don't think for instance that image and text can actually be
euivalent and even if they can, there is a gap where some people fall
between being able to process images and some process text. This goes to
the heart of the cognative issues.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what
isWebcontent?


Andi and all,

I've been a proponent of thinking of the Web provisions as a subset of
Software provisions for a long time. I think there is utility and
simplification to be gained that makes it easier to determine accessibility.
I think it could improve accessibility in both areas.

An important issue to remember when considering "merging" Web and Software
provisions is to always think of the web browser itself (a.k.a. "user
agent") as software. Many times in discussions this is where communication
on this issue breaks down. The web browser is indeed software, but the
provisions are written in such a way that one can logically assign the Web
standards to *web applications* that include browser interaction. The
concept of a web application can further be considered to be simply the
content rendered in the web browser, and perhaps not the browser itself. The
Web standards reference to how plug-ins should behave (by referencing
Software provisions) also leads the reader to thus think web content is not
software.

Another important issue is there are specific techniques that still must be
applied for web content. By example, we can question if based on the
Software provisions, § 1194.21 (d; "...the information conveyed by the image
must also be available in text.") and (f; "Textual information shall be
provided through operating system functions for displaying text...."), would
be equated to § 1194.22 (a; "A text equivalent for every non-text element
shall be provided"). I think this is a clear example where the Software
provisions cover more functionality, but the specifics of the Web provisions
are more clear. We will still need to address technology specific
techniques. Or perhaps think of them as something else altogether...

Based on the comparison of "text equivalents" versus "alt" tags alone, it
should be considered that if we do merge Software and Web provisions, the
issue of file formats will be raised. One could certainly see HTML as a file
format. Making the abstraction of web content into a file format is not
without it's own hazards (namely the arguments on both sides for validity
and well-formed content) but does provide another abstraction that I think
makes it easier to provide ongoing education for what is required for
accessibility.

There are plenty of new questions that arise when we begin to explore this
topic. Technologies that have been created since the standard that reside in
the web browser (i.e., Flash, SVG) may be able to meet the Software
provisions, but in ways the Assistive Technologies can not yet provide to
the user. We've certainly seen this in the initial introduction of
technology such as Flash and the Assistive Technologies have improved
greatly as the technology itself has matured.

How will the assistive technology keep up? They must change and adapt to the
change in technologies. Section 508 should be focused on setting out
requirements for accessibility with little specifics (that is generically as
possible) where those specific techniques are not required for
accessibility. It is simply not our job to force technologies into existence
by legal mandate. We are trying to craft an environment where anyone can
create and share with everyone - as much as that is possible. It is
difficult not to go on at length, but let me simply state that although we
consider the environment we are in and the state of the assistive technology
industries, we should simplify and combine the Web and Software provisions
so that they will age gracefully and still apply to the technologies we will
be using tomorrow that do not exist today.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:12 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Webcontent?



There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list recently about
whether or not we should merge Web and Software because the line
distinguishing the two is blurring. Indeed, this issue came up early in the
Web and Software subcommittee but we delayed any decision until we had done
the bottoms up analysis of the issues with the existing 508 provisions.

I think it is hard to put this issue to rest, one way or the other, until
we have looked at a proposal for merging the two. Otherwise, we are just
talking theory and we really don't know which is the better approach.

We have also been wrestling with the issue of applicability of the standard
based on how the content is accessed; that is, some interpret the current
508 standard to apply to HTML content only if it is accessed via the Web
but not if it is included as an attachment in an e-mail or stored on a CD.

As I looked at it this morning, I came to believe that we can't just merge
Web and software altogether but we might need to separate out the
provisions for simple content for "authors" who are not "programmers".

So I took a stab at it and then looked at how this would affect
harmonization with international standards, another of our goals.
Regardless of whether or not we choose to reorganize the provisions, we
have ended up with some country-unique requirements. If we don't
re-organize, we are fairly well harmonized with WCAG 2.0 but have some
issues with ISO. If we reorganize, we will have the same issues with ISO
harmonzation and more with WCAG 2.0.

Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting. I apologize
for sending this out so late because it is rather a lot to get through.

http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis

Andi

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Hi Andi,

I have only just started reviewing this document (so I don't promise
that this will be the full extent of my comments). Thus far, I like
very much where it is going.

I think it makes sense to change "If Content" to something like "If
Non-interactive Content", or "If Static Content" or some such, to
distinguish it from web applications.

There is a lot of content that is 100% non-interactive (you don't
interact with a baseball show - yelling out loud at the bad calls by the
umpire doesn't count), though many content viewers/players are
interactive (you can change channels, change the volume, etc.). An
awful lot of people create this kind of content - think of the vast
majority of documents, reports, e-mails, etc.

I think it would make sense to define "Non-interactive Content"
explicitly - including noting whether hyperlinks fall into the
interactive or non-interactive bucket (I suggest the non-interactive),
and noting which bucket forms fall into (I suggest interactive, though I
could be persuaded otherwise).

I also (continue to) wonder about the "Both platform and app" provision
in the software section - whether it should remain a simple provision,
or be expanded into its own section focused on platforms. E.g.:

Software that is a Platform [top level section]
Provide Accessibility Services [provision]
- must define one, or if both platform & app must expose the
underlying one
Define visual focus behavior
- must define at least one mode that meets requirements [e.g. no
"marching ants" box], or if both platform & app must expose the
underlying one
For platforms that are also applications running on top of another platform
- [most of the existing text of that section]


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list recently about
> whether or not we should merge Web and Software because the line
> distinguishing the two is blurring. Indeed, this issue came up early in the
> Web and Software subcommittee but we delayed any decision until we had done
> the bottoms up analysis of the issues with the existing 508 provisions.
>
> I think it is hard to put this issue to rest, one way or the other, until
> we have looked at a proposal for merging the two. Otherwise, we are just
> talking theory and we really don't know which is the better approach.
>
> We have also been wrestling with the issue of applicability of the standard
> based on how the content is accessed; that is, some interpret the current
> 508 standard to apply to HTML content only if it is accessed via the Web
> but not if it is included as an attachment in an e-mail or stored on a CD.
>
> As I looked at it this morning, I came to believe that we can't just merge
> Web and software altogether but we might need to separate out the
> provisions for simple content for "authors" who are not "programmers".
>
> So I took a stab at it and then looked at how this would affect
> harmonization with international standards, another of our goals.
> Regardless of whether or not we choose to reorganize the provisions, we
> have ended up with some country-unique requirements. If we don't
> re-organize, we are fairly well harmonized with WCAG 2.0 but have some
> issues with ISO. If we reorganize, we will have the same issues with ISO
> harmonzation and more with WCAG 2.0.
>
> Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting. I apologize
> for sending this out so late because it is rather a lot to get through.
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis
>
> Andi
>
>

From: William Loughborough
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Peter Korn wrote:
There is a lot of content that is 100% non-interactive (you don't
interact with a baseball show - yelling out loud at the bad calls by the
umpire doesn't count), though many content viewers/players are
interactive (you can change channels, change the volume, etc.).

In fact since we are dealing with E/IT and the example is both, I would
point out that aside from the fact that your viewing is indirectly
monitored (Nielsen surveys and voting for stuff happening in the
program) and you already get to choose to have another language and
captioning, etc. the ability to make such materials accessible in many
ways will depend on what we include.

How far to carry this is another matter having to do with notions of
"private" communications, etc. but on the whole, at some level it's ALL
content/software.

So I don't accept something as "non-interactive" simply because it's not
all that interactive today.

Love.

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

William,

I think you are missing my point. We are certainly interacting with
*something* when we manipulate content - when we turn captioning on/off,
change volume settings, turn image display on/off. But what we are
interacting with - the program that is running that is changing things
based on our actions - is NOT the content, but the content player.

Perhaps you don't feel that this is an important distinction. I do,
coming at this from the point of view of someone who creates both
content and software applications - and from a company that creates
tools for creating both content and software applications. There are
things a content author must do to facilitate user interaction with
content players - e.g. provide captions so that they can be turned on.
But there are also a lot of things a content author does NOT do that
must explicitly be the responsibility of the content player. Chief
among this is expose information programmatically to assistive
technologies. Another is to appropriately style the focus indicator.

I continue to believe (fairly strongly) that it is to our collective
benefit to filter out those provision that apply to content authors from
those that apply to software developers. The clearer we can make the
job for content authors, the more likely they will do what we ask.
Telling them they have to do a bunch of things that in fact are out of
their control will only confuse folks, and likely result in less
compliance with standards.


Finally, I think that it makes sense to place "non-interactive" web
content into the larger context of content in general. A web page with
nothing but text, images, and links is really remarkably similar to word
processing document with nothing but text, images (and perhaps links);
is remarkably similar to an e-mail message with nothing but text, images
(and perhaps links). And all of these are really more similar than they
are different from an audio file, a video file. There are some specific
things we need to do in video that we don't have to do in most e-mail
(captions with synchronization information for a player to use to
synchronize them). But these are both vastly different from a program
that comes with its own player and renders its own play/pause/rewind
buttons as a browser plugin. And vastly different from an interactive
Flash application. It is this vast difference that leads me to the
conclusion that a distinction between these two camps makes sense in our
standards.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Peter Korn wrote:
> There is a lot of content that is 100% non-interactive (you don't
> interact with a baseball show - yelling out loud at the bad calls by the
> umpire doesn't count), though many content viewers/players are
> interactive (you can change channels, change the volume, etc.).
>
> In fact since we are dealing with E/IT and the example is both, I would
> point out that aside from the fact that your viewing is indirectly
> monitored (Nielsen surveys and voting for stuff happening in the
> program) and you already get to choose to have another language and
> captioning, etc. the ability to make such materials accessible in many
> ways will depend on what we include.
>
> How far to carry this is another matter having to do with notions of
> "private" communications, etc. but on the whole, at some level it's ALL
> content/software.
>
> So I don't accept something as "non-interactive" simply because it's not
> all that interactive today.
>
> Love.
>

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

I too expect to have multiple passes at this;

Regarding interactive-content, my problem with this is that you can't cleanly separate content from its player. No content is interactive by itself, it needs a player/platform on which to run (which in the limit may be hardware).

HTML is not interactive when viewed in Notepad, but it is when viewed in Internet explorer. But even plain text can be made interactive by a smart client like emacs. So I think using interaction as a dividing line is a non-starter. In the WCAG guidelines there is always the expectation of a user agent.

I think we also have to bring some reality into the assumption that we can define rules that apply to all content (especially email, voicemail, SMS and similar text messages). This is going to be a huge cost factor.

Where we did seem to be getting some traction was in the content format/ content player/ platform split; I suggest that was a much more fruitful avenue to explore than this idea of 'simple software' and 'complex software', especially as the constituency that are developing 'simple software' are likely doing so through a tool.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Corporate Accessibility Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
Sent: 11 July 2007 19:50
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Hi Andi,

I have only just started reviewing this document (so I don't promise
that this will be the full extent of my comments). Thus far, I like
very much where it is going.

I think it makes sense to change "If Content" to something like "If
Non-interactive Content", or "If Static Content" or some such, to
distinguish it from web applications.

There is a lot of content that is 100% non-interactive (you don't
interact with a baseball show - yelling out loud at the bad calls by the
umpire doesn't count), though many content viewers/players are
interactive (you can change channels, change the volume, etc.). An
awful lot of people create this kind of content - think of the vast
majority of documents, reports, e-mails, etc.

I think it would make sense to define "Non-interactive Content"
explicitly - including noting whether hyperlinks fall into the
interactive or non-interactive bucket (I suggest the non-interactive),
and noting which bucket forms fall into (I suggest interactive, though I
could be persuaded otherwise).

I also (continue to) wonder about the "Both platform and app" provision
in the software section - whether it should remain a simple provision,
or be expanded into its own section focused on platforms. E.g.:

Software that is a Platform [top level section]
Provide Accessibility Services [provision]
- must define one, or if both platform & app must expose the
underlying one
Define visual focus behavior
- must define at least one mode that meets requirements [e.g. no
"marching ants" box], or if both platform & app must expose the
underlying one
For platforms that are also applications running on top of another platform
- [most of the existing text of that section]


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> There has been a lot of discussion on the mailing list recently about
> whether or not we should merge Web and Software because the line
> distinguishing the two is blurring. Indeed, this issue came up early in the
> Web and Software subcommittee but we delayed any decision until we had done
> the bottoms up analysis of the issues with the existing 508 provisions.
>
> I think it is hard to put this issue to rest, one way or the other, until
> we have looked at a proposal for merging the two. Otherwise, we are just
> talking theory and we really don't know which is the better approach.
>
> We have also been wrestling with the issue of applicability of the standard
> based on how the content is accessed; that is, some interpret the current
> 508 standard to apply to HTML content only if it is accessed via the Web
> but not if it is included as an attachment in an e-mail or stored on a CD.
>
> As I looked at it this morning, I came to believe that we can't just merge
> Web and software altogether but we might need to separate out the
> provisions for simple content for "authors" who are not "programmers".
>
> So I took a stab at it and then looked at how this would affect
> harmonization with international standards, another of our goals.
> Regardless of whether or not we choose to reorganize the provisions, we
> have ended up with some country-unique requirements. If we don't
> re-organize, we are fairly well harmonized with WCAG 2.0 but have some
> issues with ISO. If we reorganize, we will have the same issues with ISO
> harmonzation and more with WCAG 2.0.
>
> Please take a look at the analysis prior to today's meeting. I apologize
> for sending this out so late because it is rather a lot to get through.
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis
>
> Andi
>
>

From: William Loughborough
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Peter Korn wrote:
> ...what we are interacting with - the program that is running that is changing things based on our actions - is NOT the content, but the content player.
>
When one "votes" via cell phone and the results show up in the content
we are changing the content.

I think this will spread in as yet unnamed ways.

Love.

From: Walser, Kate
Date: Wed, Jul 18 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Peter and Sean,

In the discussion of interactive and non-interactive content, where
would forms fall? I assumed that these would fall under interactive
until I saw you include the words audio, video, and players in your
messages. For example, I may use a Web-based form with the standard HTML
input fields and components to buy a book online. I consider this
interactive - I'm filling in a form to buy a book. But I'm not using any
audio, video, or players do so.

The interactive versus non-interactive distinction seems a tricky one
that could generate more problems than we can anticipate now.

Best regards,
Kate

Kate Walser
Director, Usability Center of Excellence
SRA International, Inc.
4300 Fair Lakes Court
Fairfax, VA 22033
(703) 502-1170

From: Peter Wallack
Date: Wed, Jul 18 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Peter Korn had previously commented on 'forms' on 7/11:<br>
<blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I think it would make sense to define "Non-interactive Content"
explicitly - including noting whether hyperlinks fall into the
interactive or non-interactive bucket (I suggest the non-interactive),
<b>and noting which bucket forms fall into (I suggest interactive</b>, though I
could be persuaded otherwise).

</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm not quite sure though what it would take to persuade him that forms
weren't interactive; if the threshold becomes the use of javascript, I
really don't think thats a good idea (not because its
language-specific, but because one could construct fairly complicated
forms even without javascript.)<br>
<br>
I still am having a lot of trouble with the "interactive" vs.
"non-interactive" split. I completely understand and support the
rationale behind keeping things simple for simple situations, yet I
don't see any "software-like" provisions that shouldn't apply (or
aren't easily assessed as N/A) to both "interactive" and
"non-interactive", or "web" and "software" for that matter.<br>
<br>
My head has been spinning with this stuff; the only buckets that are
making sense to me right now are the following:<br>
<ul>
<li><b>formats:</b> programming languages, media standards, etc. They
have to be able to encode content that can be used for accessibility
purposes.</li>
<li><b>players:</b>&nbsp; an O/S, a browser, AT, a DVD player, etc. They
have to be able to read content from the underlying format directly or
through a platform and present it in a way that a disabled user can use
it, either directly or with AT. The UI of a player itself has to adhere
to 508. [I'm intrigued that this bucket could mix software and
hardware, yet at the same time frightened by that]<br>
</li>
<li><b>content:</b> the actual stuff authored by a writer,
programmer, multimedia artist, etc.</li>
</ul>
With those buckets, as a software vendor I should be able to pick a
language that meets the format provisions, players (OS and browser)
that meet the player provisions for the language I picked, I author my
content to meet the content provisions, I point my users to AT that
also meets the player provisions, and all is perfect.&nbsp; What that would
make 508 actually look like, sadly I haven't got a clue.<br>
<br>
I'm hoping that something in this novella induces someone else to 'see
the light'!<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation</pre>
<br>
<br>
Walser, Kate wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Peter and Sean,

In the discussion of interactive and non-interactive content, where
would forms fall? I assumed that these would fall under interactive
until I saw you include the words audio, video, and players in your
messages. For example, I may use a Web-based form with the standard HTML
input fields and components to buy a book online. I consider this
interactive - I'm filling in a form to buy a book. But I'm not using any
audio, video, or players do so.

The interactive versus non-interactive distinction seems a tricky one
that could generate more problems than we can anticipate now.

Best regards,
Kate

Kate Walser
Director, Usability Center of Excellence
SRA International, Inc.
4300 Fair Lakes Court
Fairfax, VA 22033
(703) 502-1170

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

First

I think the simple Web vs Software Web split is good.





The question I have is, - what do we do when people use tools to create web
pages - and the tools inject software elements into the page. The author
has no idea what is simple HTML and what is software. it is all just
WYSIWYG to them. Yet if the tool has inaccessible software pieces it
uses.. you end up with simple authors writing software web.. Who cannot
understand software web rules.



?????




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Wallack
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:58 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is Web
content?

Peter Korn had previously commented on 'forms' on 7/11:

I think it would make sense to define "Non-interactive Content"
explicitly - including noting whether hyperlinks fall into the
interactive or non-interactive bucket (I suggest the non-interactive),
and noting which bucket forms fall into (I suggest interactive, though I
could be persuaded otherwise).



I'm not quite sure though what it would take to persuade him that forms
weren't interactive; if the threshold becomes the use of javascript, I
really don't think thats a good idea (not because its language-specific, but
because one could construct fairly complicated forms even without
javascript.)

I still am having a lot of trouble with the "interactive" vs.
"non-interactive" split. I completely understand and support the rationale
behind keeping things simple for simple situations, yet I don't see any
"software-like" provisions that shouldn't apply (or aren't easily assessed
as N/A) to both "interactive" and "non-interactive", or "web" and "software"
for that matter.

My head has been spinning with this stuff; the only buckets that are making
sense to me right now are the following:

* formats: programming languages, media standards, etc. They have to
be able to encode content that can be used for accessibility purposes.
* players: an O/S, a browser, AT, a DVD player, etc. They have to be
able to read content from the underlying format directly or through a
platform and present it in a way that a disabled user can use it, either
directly or with AT. The UI of a player itself has to adhere to 508. [I'm
intrigued that this bucket could mix software and hardware, yet at the same
time frightened by that]
* content: the actual stuff authored by a writer, programmer,
multimedia artist, etc.

With those buckets, as a software vendor I should be able to pick a language
that meets the format provisions, players (OS and browser) that meet the
player provisions for the language I picked, I author my content to meet the
content provisions, I point my users to AT that also meets the player
provisions, and all is perfect. What that would make 508 actually look
like, sadly I haven't got a clue.

I'm hoping that something in this novella induces someone else to 'see the
light'!




Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation



Walser, Kate wrote:

Peter and Sean,

In the discussion of interactive and non-interactive content, where
would forms fall? I assumed that these would fall under interactive
until I saw you include the words audio, video, and players in your
messages. For example, I may use a Web-based form with the standard HTML
input fields and components to buy a book online. I consider this
interactive - I'm filling in a form to buy a book. But I'm not using any
audio, video, or players do so.

The interactive versus non-interactive distinction seems a tricky one
that could generate more problems than we can anticipate now.

Best regards,
Kate

Kate Walser
Director, Usability Center of Excellence
SRA International, Inc.
4300 Fair Lakes Court
Fairfax, VA 22033
(703) 502-1170

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Something else we may want to consider.
If the Board holds fast to their distinction between "information
technology" and "information and data," in that the first is covered and
can be identified by a level of interactivity, and the second is not
covered in that it is static data with no interactivity, we don't want
to put any web content in the bucket which they may decide is
uncoverable by 508. I think it is not a good idea to put any web into a
category of non-interactive content, until we have a better idea of how
the Board will respond to this whole content issue.

Don


Information and relationships

Both platform and app

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:14 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Web content?

First

I think the simple Web vs Software Web split is good.





The question I have is, - what do we do when people use tools to create
web pages - and the tools inject software elements into the page. The
author has no idea what is simple HTML and what is software. it is all
just WYSIWYG to them. Yet if the tool has inaccessible software pieces
it uses...... you end up with simple authors writing software web....
Who cannot understand software web rules.



?????




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

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

How do you propose we find out how the Board will respond?



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Barrett, Don
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:39 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Webcontent?

Something else we may want to consider.
If the Board holds fast to their distinction between "information
technology" and "information and data," in that the first is covered and
can be identified by a level of interactivity, and the second is not
covered in that it is static data with no interactivity, we don't want
to put any web content in the bucket which they may decide is
uncoverable by 508. I think it is not a good idea to put any web into a
category of non-interactive content, until we have a better idea of how
the Board will respond to this whole content issue.

Don


Information and relationships

Both platform and app

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:14 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Web content?

First

I think the simple Web vs Software Web split is good.





The question I have is, - what do we do when people use tools to create
web pages - and the tools inject software elements into the page. The
author has no idea what is simple HTML and what is software. it is all
just WYSIWYG to them. Yet if the tool has inaccessible software pieces
it uses...... you end up with simple authors writing software web....
Who cannot understand software web rules.



?????




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

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what isWebcontent?

Great question; it's really a decision for their GC I guess; not sure
now how to tap into that; Bruce?????

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:51 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what
isWebcontent?

How do you propose we find out how the Board will respond?



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Barrett, Don
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:39 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Webcontent?

Something else we may want to consider.
If the Board holds fast to their distinction between "information
technology" and "information and data," in that the first is covered and
can be identified by a level of interactivity, and the second is not
covered in that it is static data with no interactivity, we don't want
to put any web content in the bucket which they may decide is
uncoverable by 508. I think it is not a good idea to put any web into a
category of non-interactive content, until we have a better idea of how
the Board will respond to this whole content issue.

Don


Information and relationships

Both platform and app

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:14 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Web content?

First

I think the simple Web vs Software Web split is good.





The question I have is, - what do we do when people use tools to create
web pages - and the tools inject software elements into the page. The
author has no idea what is simple HTML and what is software. it is all
just WYSIWYG to them. Yet if the tool has inaccessible software pieces
it uses...... you end up with simple authors writing software web....
Who cannot understand software web rules.



?????




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

From: Tom Brett
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and whatisWebcontent?

Based on the information that Dave presented yesterday it is my
understanding that the Board will not make a decision on anything until
after the final report has been submitted by TEITAC.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Barrett,
Don
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:09 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and
whatisWebcontent?

Great question; it's really a decision for their GC I guess; not sure
now how to tap into that; Bruce?????

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:51 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what
isWebcontent?

How do you propose we find out how the Board will respond?



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Barrett, Don
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:39 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Webcontent?

Something else we may want to consider.
If the Board holds fast to their distinction between "information
technology" and "information and data," in that the first is covered and
can be identified by a level of interactivity, and the second is not
covered in that it is static data with no interactivity, we don't want
to put any web content in the bucket which they may decide is
uncoverable by 508. I think it is not a good idea to put any web into a
category of non-interactive content, until we have a better idea of how
the Board will respond to this whole content issue.

Don


Information and relationships

Both platform and app

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:14 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Web content?

First

I think the simple Web vs Software Web split is good.





The question I have is, - what do we do when people use tools to create
web pages - and the tools inject software elements into the page. The
author has no idea what is simple HTML and what is software. it is all
just WYSIWYG to them. Yet if the tool has inaccessible software pieces
it uses...... you end up with simple authors writing software web....
Who cannot understand software web rules.



?????




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

From: Daniela Marghitu
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Dear Gregg and All,

I teach Software Web development and I am also a Software Web
developer.
More and more of my students are interested in learning about
accessibility in
the virtual space. Also, more and more educators are asking me
questions at different
events where I give presentations about maximizing the accessibility in
the virtual and physical
space especially in K12 and Higher Education!

I can NOT agree more with you on making sure people actually understand

software web rules. This is the only way we can actually maximize the
number
of people and experts that understand and implement Accessibility Web
rules.

Perhaps there should be an Outreach TEITAC subcommittee working just on
this
topic *

With best regards,
Daniela



Daniela Marghitu, Ph.D.
Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering
Samuel Ginn College of Engineering
Dunstan Hall, Room 105C
Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Phone: (334)844-6386 Fax: (334)844-6329
Web Address: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/daniela/


>>> Gregg Vanderheiden < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 7/19/2007 8:14 AM >>>
First

I think the simple Web vs Software Web split is good.





The question I have is, - what do we do when people use tools to
create web
pages - and the tools inject software elements into the page. The
author
has no idea what is simple HTML and what is software. it is all just
WYSIWYG to them. Yet if the tool has inaccessible software pieces it
uses.. you end up with simple authors writing software web.. Who
cannot
understand software web rules.



?????




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Wallack
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:58 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Web
content?

Peter Korn had previously commented on 'forms' on 7/11:

I think it would make sense to define "Non-interactive Content"
explicitly - including noting whether hyperlinks fall into the
interactive or non-interactive bucket (I suggest the non-interactive),

and noting which bucket forms fall into (I suggest interactive, though
I
could be persuaded otherwise).



I'm not quite sure though what it would take to persuade him that
forms
weren't interactive; if the threshold becomes the use of javascript, I
really don't think thats a good idea (not because its
language-specific, but
because one could construct fairly complicated forms even without
javascript.)

I still am having a lot of trouble with the "interactive" vs.
"non-interactive" split. I completely understand and support the
rationale
behind keeping things simple for simple situations, yet I don't see
any
"software-like" provisions that shouldn't apply (or aren't easily
assessed
as N/A) to both "interactive" and "non-interactive", or "web" and
"software"
for that matter.

My head has been spinning with this stuff; the only buckets that are
making
sense to me right now are the following:

* formats: programming languages, media standards, etc. They have
to
be able to encode content that can be used for accessibility purposes.

* players: an O/S, a browser, AT, a DVD player, etc. They have to
be
able to read content from the underlying format directly or through a
platform and present it in a way that a disabled user can use it,
either
directly or with AT. The UI of a player itself has to adhere to 508.
[I'm
intrigued that this bucket could mix software and hardware, yet at the
same
time frightened by that]
* content: the actual stuff authored by a writer, programmer,
multimedia artist, etc.

With those buckets, as a software vendor I should be able to pick a
language
that meets the format provisions, players (OS and browser) that meet
the
player provisions for the language I picked, I author my content to
meet the
content provisions, I point my users to AT that also meets the player
provisions, and all is perfect. What that would make 508 actually
look
like, sadly I haven't got a clue.

I'm hoping that something in this novella induces someone else to 'see
the
light'!




Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation



Walser, Kate wrote:

Peter and Sean,

In the discussion of interactive and non-interactive content, where
would forms fall? I assumed that these would fall under interactive
until I saw you include the words audio, video, and players in your
messages. For example, I may use a Web-based form with the standard
HTML
input fields and components to buy a book online. I consider this
interactive - I'm filling in a form to buy a book. But I'm not using
any
audio, video, or players do so.

The interactive versus non-interactive distinction seems a tricky one
that could generate more problems than we can anticipate now.

Best regards,
Kate

Kate Walser
Director, Usability Center of Excellence
SRA International, Inc.
4300 Fair Lakes Court
Fairfax, VA 22033
(703) 502-1170

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and whatisWebcontent?

Hopefully my thoughts will be clear for this discussion, now that we are
well and truly in to it.


At the May meeting some discussion was started about inclusion of
content beyond HTML, and most felt it was the way we had to go. In July
more rumblings of descent were apparent to me, with people voicing
problems such as "if I send an email from myself to one other does that
need to be compliant?". Drawing applicability lines, implementation
concerns, and liability concerns are the general concerns rather than if
access to and use of such other formats of content is needed.


so, I will try and walk through this step by step, from the goal to the
methods and hopeful solutions we may be able to implement.

First, the vision/goal:

All information and data are accessible for people with disabilities
regardless of storage media, transport mechanisms, presentation systems,
or encoding format.

Some implications:

Yes, Virginia, one-on-one exchanges would be covered.
Selection of accessible formats and authoring tools are critical to
capacity to succeed.
Questions of what is in and what is out would go away.

What we have now:

We have content requirements for HTML-based content;
We have requirements for any-format of audio/video content;
We have content requirements that may be interpreted more broadly than
HTML, but are in Inter and intra-net section now.
We have software requirements to define how interfaces must be
delivered;

What do i feel we need?

We need a metric to assess content formats, more or less done now.

We need
a provision that states that content must be authored to use the
available accessibility attributes as defined in the content format
section, to achieve the most accessible outcome.

We may also need a statement that is similar to the goal statement, such
as:

Information and data, (aka content), regardless of storage media,
transmission method, or presentation system, must be created, and
updated, in such a manor to use the most accessible formats available,
and must use the accessibility attributes in that format to achieve the
most accessible outcome.

Information and data include, but are not limited to:
non-interactive documents, audio/video, flow-charts, diagrams,
web pages;
Interactive forms, audio/video, and web applications;

The question about is "software" content is problematic, but basically,
yes it is. I'm not sure we need to use it as we have sufficient
detailed requirements regarding software, and it can be just considered
a whole set of itself. Overlap of web/software may make inclusion of
web in this problematic, so it might also be moved into a separate
section, with specific reference to both included to point folks in the
right direction to web or software requirements as subsets of content.

If we build on data, from content formats, to a general content
accessibility requirement as listed above, to specific web and software
and authoring tool requirements, I think we'll have the topic covered in
a consistent and feasible way.


So, this would cause average documents producers to in theory be
required to create and update documents to be accessible. The
Access-board feels this is not clearly defined in current standards, but
it also clearly is not excluded. Inclusion of authoring tool
requirements may ease this implementation, and is clearly needed to
support this clarification of the question on this side.

Impact of not including content:

Should someone at work rely constantly upon specific assistive
technologies and reasonable accommodations to simply read materials
needed to do the job because, for example, inaccessible formats are
used, when accessible formats are available?

Should members of the public constantly be referred to special support
to get accessible documents from the government via email, or phone
numbers rarely ever supported in a timely fashion?

Since almost anything can make its way to the web, skipping
accessibility until the end creates enormous costs.

Should people constantly have to re-create the accessibility of
information because tools don't preserve the attributes through the
authoring and revision processes?

Basically there isn't any magic to overcome the volume of inaccessible
content, but inroads in to this problem can be made by requiring
authoring tools to get onboard, requiring content to be accessible
without any vagaries of applicability, and then enforcing this across
government in the most practical and sensible ways we can--e.g.. first
get to public information, then get to internal widely distributed
information and critical job-information, then consider smaller
subgroups as time permits. The standard should be based on need, and
the need for access to and use of information and data not respective of
storage media, transport mechanism, or presentation system is clear and
constant. Implementation and enforcement are not for the standard to
deal with specifically in my opinion.








Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Barrett, Don
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:09 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and
whatisWebcontent?

Great question; it's really a decision for their GC I guess; not sure
now how to tap into that; Bruce?????

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:51 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what
isWebcontent?

How do you propose we find out how the Board will respond?



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Barrett, Don
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:39 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Webcontent?

Something else we may want to consider.
If the Board holds fast to their distinction between "information
technology" and "information and data," in that the first is covered and
can be identified by a level of interactivity, and the second is not
covered in that it is static data with no interactivity, we don't want
to put any web content in the bucket which they may decide is
uncoverable by 508. I think it is not a good idea to put any web into a
category of non-interactive content, until we have a better idea of how
the Board will respond to this whole content issue.

Don


Information and relationships

Both platform and app

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:14 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Web content?

First

I think the simple Web vs Software Web split is good.





The question I have is, - what do we do when people use tools to create
web pages - and the tools inject software elements into the page. The
author has no idea what is simple HTML and what is software. it is all
just WYSIWYG to them. Yet if the tool has inaccessible software pieces
it uses...... you end up with simple authors writing software web....
Who cannot understand software web rules.



?????




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

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

All,

I wrote a response on 2007-11-07 posted at 12:21PM that included
discussions about merging of software and web content. The web browser
is software, it is the application. The standards address the content
and application as one "thing" when referenced as "web-based
applications".

I think Peter has a very useful tool in considering the
perspective of content authors (the XHTML documents provided to the
browser) differently that software developers (who create the web
browser itself).

Put another way, if the software developers creating the web
browser (including designing the ability to have plug-ins) consider the
Section 508 technical standards for software, *in context* with how
content developers are creating the content (e.g., the document type
standards such as HTML, XHTML) then we have a good approach. There is a
relationship between the two - both can exist and are useless without
the other.

Note that this will not eliminate the need to test the
integration between content as rendered by a particular software or web
browser, unless the content can be validated in isolation and the
software or web browser can be certified to meet a particular behavior
in rendering to existing standards. And, as I mentioned in the earlier
email, this mandates the need we address file formats in the refresh, if
only to define file formats for ?HTML.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Korn
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:48 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is
Web content?


William,

I think you are missing my point. We are certainly interacting with
*something* when we manipulate content - when we turn captioning on/off,

change volume settings, turn image display on/off. But what we are
interacting with - the program that is running that is changing things
based on our actions - is NOT the content, but the content player.

Perhaps you don't feel that this is an important distinction. I do,
coming at this from the point of view of someone who creates both
content and software applications - and from a company that creates
tools for creating both content and software applications. There are
things a content author must do to facilitate user interaction with
content players - e.g. provide captions so that they can be turned on.
But there are also a lot of things a content author does NOT do that
must explicitly be the responsibility of the content player. Chief
among this is expose information programmatically to assistive
technologies. Another is to appropriately style the focus indicator.

I continue to believe (fairly strongly) that it is to our collective
benefit to filter out those provision that apply to content authors from

those that apply to software developers. The clearer we can make the
job for content authors, the more likely they will do what we ask.
Telling them they have to do a bunch of things that in fact are out of
their control will only confuse folks, and likely result in less
compliance with standards.


Finally, I think that it makes sense to place "non-interactive" web
content into the larger context of content in general. A web page with
nothing but text, images, and links is really remarkably similar to word

processing document with nothing but text, images (and perhaps links);
is remarkably similar to an e-mail message with nothing but text, images

(and perhaps links). And all of these are really more similar than they

are different from an audio file, a video file. There are some specific

things we need to do in video that we don't have to do in most e-mail
(captions with synchronization information for a player to use to
synchronize them). But these are both vastly different from a program
that comes with its own player and renders its own play/pause/rewind
buttons as a browser plugin. And vastly different from an interactive
Flash application. It is this vast difference that leads me to the
conclusion that a distinction between these two camps makes sense in our

standards.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Peter Korn wrote:
> There is a lot of content that is 100% non-interactive (you don't
> interact with a baseball show - yelling out loud at the bad calls by
the
> umpire doesn't count), though many content viewers/players are
> interactive (you can change channels, change the volume, etc.).
>
> In fact since we are dealing with E/IT and the example is both, I
would
> point out that aside from the fact that your viewing is indirectly
> monitored (Nielsen surveys and voting for stuff happening in the
> program) and you already get to choose to have another language and
> captioning, etc. the ability to make such materials accessible in many

> ways will depend on what we include.
>
> How far to carry this is another matter having to do with notions of
> "private" communications, etc. but on the whole, at some level it's
ALL
> content/software.
>
> So I don't accept something as "non-interactive" simply because it's
not
> all that interactive today.
>
> Love.
>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

Hi Peter (er, "other Peter"),

I think your buckets discussion below is illuminating, and would like to
riff on it a bit.

I think we actually have 4 buckets in the web & software (and content
and ...) domain, with three sub-buckets:

- Platforms (includes OSes)
- Content formats
- Applications
- special applications that are content authoring tools
- special applications that are themselves platforms on another
platform (web browsers, Flash, Java)
- special applications that are content viewers
- Content

Whether we structure our guidelines directly along these bucket
categories or not, we need provisions that address these issues/buckets.

As to whether forms are or or not "interactive", I think that is a
relatively minor issue. We make a definition of what "interactive" is,
and wherever forms lie with respect to that definition, we make sure our
provisions address them in the place the wind up living.

A key driver for me (and Don Barrett noted this as well in this thread)
is that there are several orders of magnitude more content creator than
there are software developers. The amount of attention to and
sensitivity toward accessibility we can hope for from software
developers, while perhaps lower than we'd like, is still dramatically
more than from content creators. This reality is a lot of why I want to
make the content rules as simple as possible, why I think we need to
elevate content format issues, and why authoring tools guidelines make
sense. Yes, perhaps the content rules are a subset of the software
rules (though I'm not sure I really agree with that), and by having one
set we don't have to worry about finding the least awkward place to draw
an "interactive vs. non-interactive" line; but I believe the sheer
number of content creators who will never learn much of anything about
accessibility mean it is truly in our best interests to draw that line
and make as clear as possible what we need from the bulk of the content
that folks are creating.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Peter Korn had previously commented on 'forms' on 7/11:
>
> I think it would make sense to define "Non-interactive Content"
> explicitly - including noting whether hyperlinks fall into the
> interactive or non-interactive bucket (I suggest the non-interactive),
> *and noting which bucket forms fall into (I suggest interactive*, though I
> could be persuaded otherwise).
>
>
>
> I'm not quite sure though what it would take to persuade him that
> forms weren't interactive; if the threshold becomes the use of
> javascript, I really don't think thats a good idea (not because its
> language-specific, but because one could construct fairly complicated
> forms even without javascript.)
>
> I still am having a lot of trouble with the "interactive" vs.
> "non-interactive" split. I completely understand and support the
> rationale behind keeping things simple for simple situations, yet I
> don't see any "software-like" provisions that shouldn't apply (or
> aren't easily assessed as N/A) to both "interactive" and
> "non-interactive", or "web" and "software" for that matter.
>
> My head has been spinning with this stuff; the only buckets that are
> making sense to me right now are the following:
>
> * *formats:* programming languages, media standards, etc. They
> have to be able to encode content that can be used for
> accessibility purposes.
> * *players:* an O/S, a browser, AT, a DVD player, etc. They have
> to be able to read content from the underlying format directly
> or through a platform and present it in a way that a disabled
> user can use it, either directly or with AT. The UI of a player
> itself has to adhere to 508. [I'm intrigued that this bucket
> could mix software and hardware, yet at the same time frightened
> by that]
> * *content:* the actual stuff authored by a writer, programmer,
> multimedia artist, etc.
>
> With those buckets, as a software vendor I should be able to pick a
> language that meets the format provisions, players (OS and browser)
> that meet the player provisions for the language I picked, I author my
> content to meet the content provisions, I point my users to AT that
> also meets the player provisions, and all is perfect. What that would
> make 508 actually look like, sadly I haven't got a clue.
>
> I'm hoping that something in this novella induces someone else to 'see
> the light'!
>
> Peter Wallack
> Accessibility Program Director
> Oracle Corporation
>
>
> Walser, Kate wrote:
>> Peter and Sean,
>>
>> In the discussion of interactive and non-interactive content, where
>> would forms fall? I assumed that these would fall under interactive
>> until I saw you include the words audio, video, and players in your
>> messages. For example, I may use a Web-based form with the standard HTML
>> input fields and components to buy a book online. I consider this
>> interactive - I'm filling in a form to buy a book. But I'm not using any
>> audio, video, or players do so.
>>
>> The interactive versus non-interactive distinction seems a tricky one
>> that could generate more problems than we can anticipate now.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kate
>>
>> Kate Walser
>> Director, Usability Center of Excellence
>> SRA International, Inc.
>> 4300 Fair Lakes Court
>> Fairfax, VA 22033
>> (703) 502-1170
>>
>>

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2007 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Web content?

For tomorrow's Web and Software subcommittee meeting, I have tweaked the
Web and Software re-organization proposal slightly to address some comments
and some issues we have been discussing inside IBM. [1]

Here is a summary of the changes:

- changed the headings so that it is clear the first section applies to all
software and all content; the second one applies to all software and all
interactive content that is implemented using programming logic; the third
one applies to software that is both a platform and an application; and the
last section applies to authoring tools. Not sure what we should do about
A/V content. I have not included those provisions for now.

- Color - listed all three potential provisions so we can discuss which one
is most appropriate.

- Contrast - noted that this is in conflict with the User Preferences
provision - we need to discuss if this is only applicable to content

- Moved the consistent use of bitmaps provision up to the Consistent
Identification provision. They are related but not exactly the same.

- Rich raised an issue with the AT interoperability provision. For
interactive electronic content that is rendered by a user agent, some of
these provisions don't apply. For example, the boundary of text rendered to
the screen. For interactive content, this function is provided by the user
agent. So I have attempted to provide the WCAG User Interface Components
requirement for interactive content and the AT interoperability provision
for software. It's awkward but I hope it's headed in the right direction to
resolve the concern.

Please review before tomorrow's meeting.

If you haven't looked at this before, please start with the background
information that explains the goals. [2]

I didn't get to the harmonization impact analysis [3] yet but it will also
need to be tweaked slightly. I'll try to get that done before tomorrow's
meeting.

[1]
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Reorganized_Web_and_Software_provisions
[2] http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis
[3]
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Analysis_of_impact_to_harmonization_with_WCAG_2.0_and_ISO.

Andi

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

Hi Andi

I'm in China so I won't be able to join you. Some thoughts though.


1) The renaming may help with the software/content issue but exacerbates
the problem with general behavior.
There are many things that these apply to that most people don't
consider software (they think OS).
They need to clearly apply to the behavior in hardware that is
controlled by software or firmware.
So I don't think those names work - but have to think about it.

2) I thought color was the only thing that stayed up in General. Not a big
problem though. By the way WCAG is tuning their language.

Heck - I'll put the comments on the page next per your example so they are
in context and easier to use/consider.

Thanks for all your work on this.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:31 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software
> and what is Webcontent?
>
>
> For tomorrow's Web and Software subcommittee meeting, I have
> tweaked the Web and Software re-organization proposal
> slightly to address some comments and some issues we have
> been discussing inside IBM. [1]
>
> Here is a summary of the changes:
>
> - changed the headings so that it is clear the first section
> applies to all software and all content; the second one
> applies to all software and all interactive content that is
> implemented using programming logic; the third one applies to
> software that is both a platform and an application; and the
> last section applies to authoring tools. Not sure what we
> should do about A/V content. I have not included those
> provisions for now.
>
> - Color - listed all three potential provisions so we can
> discuss which one is most appropriate.
>
> - Contrast - noted that this is in conflict with the User
> Preferences provision - we need to discuss if this is only
> applicable to content
>
> - Moved the consistent use of bitmaps provision up to the
> Consistent Identification provision. They are related but not
> exactly the same.
>
> - Rich raised an issue with the AT interoperability
> provision. For interactive electronic content that is
> rendered by a user agent, some of these provisions don't
> apply. For example, the boundary of text rendered to the
> screen. For interactive content, this function is provided by
> the user agent. So I have attempted to provide the WCAG User
> Interface Components requirement for interactive content and
> the AT interoperability provision for software. It's awkward
> but I hope it's headed in the right direction to resolve the concern.
>
> Please review before tomorrow's meeting.
>
> If you haven't looked at this before, please start with the
> background information that explains the goals. [2]
>
> I didn't get to the harmonization impact analysis [3] yet but
> it will also need to be tweaked slightly. I'll try to get
> that done before tomorrow's meeting.
>
> [1]
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Reorganized_Web_and_S
> oftware_provisions
> [2] http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis
> [3]
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Analysis_of_impact_to
> _harmonization_with_WCAG_2.0_and_ISO.
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2007 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

I also cannot be on the call today.

I don't think the bucket headings you have here really help at all, 'interactive' is not a clear distinguishing characteristic of content/software, as its partly an aspect of the player and the context in which it is used. The set of stuff that is in the first bucket, but not in the second bucket needs some examples.

I also don't see how these get applied to a group of file types, as would typically be deployed on a website for example.

Contrast, Color and Flash don't really apply intrinsically to simple encoding types such as Unicode strings. It applies to their presentation, control of which may or may not be encoded in some other format or by a player. So you can't say a text document passes the contrast provision, but its presentation in an agent (possibly controlled by some other theme file) may do.

What we are trying to require here is that the end user experience be accessible, whether that experience be provided by software entirely running on a client, or software partly running on a client and partly sourced from elsewhere seems entirely moot to me.

We need provisions that control how a user experience is made accessible by a client, and how data is persisted and communicated so that the user experience can be reconstructed in an accessible manner by a client. Beyond that I don't think there is a sensible line that can be drawn. What you seem to be trying to do with the 'non interactive' bucket seems to me largely captured in the content format provisions.

Having additional clauses which apply to specific categories of software that can be identified (like Platform, Authoring tool, Media Player) does make a certain amount of sense, provided we can be reasonably crisp about the definition.


Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Corporate Accessibility Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: 25 July 2007 05:58
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

Hi Andi

I'm in China so I won't be able to join you. Some thoughts though.


1) The renaming may help with the software/content issue but exacerbates
the problem with general behavior.
There are many things that these apply to that most people don't
consider software (they think OS).
They need to clearly apply to the behavior in hardware that is
controlled by software or firmware.
So I don't think those names work - but have to think about it.

2) I thought color was the only thing that stayed up in General. Not a big
problem though. By the way WCAG is tuning their language.

Heck - I'll put the comments on the page next per your example so they are
in context and easier to use/consider.

Thanks for all your work on this.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:31 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging Web and Software
> and what is Webcontent?
>
>
> For tomorrow's Web and Software subcommittee meeting, I have
> tweaked the Web and Software re-organization proposal
> slightly to address some comments and some issues we have
> been discussing inside IBM. [1]
>
> Here is a summary of the changes:
>
> - changed the headings so that it is clear the first section
> applies to all software and all content; the second one
> applies to all software and all interactive content that is
> implemented using programming logic; the third one applies to
> software that is both a platform and an application; and the
> last section applies to authoring tools. Not sure what we
> should do about A/V content. I have not included those
> provisions for now.
>
> - Color - listed all three potential provisions so we can
> discuss which one is most appropriate.
>
> - Contrast - noted that this is in conflict with the User
> Preferences provision - we need to discuss if this is only
> applicable to content
>
> - Moved the consistent use of bitmaps provision up to the
> Consistent Identification provision. They are related but not
> exactly the same.
>
> - Rich raised an issue with the AT interoperability
> provision. For interactive electronic content that is
> rendered by a user agent, some of these provisions don't
> apply. For example, the boundary of text rendered to the
> screen. For interactive content, this function is provided by
> the user agent. So I have attempted to provide the WCAG User
> Interface Components requirement for interactive content and
> the AT interoperability provision for software. It's awkward
> but I hope it's headed in the right direction to resolve the concern.
>
> Please review before tomorrow's meeting.
>
> If you haven't looked at this before, please start with the
> background information that explains the goals. [2]
>
> I didn't get to the harmonization impact analysis [3] yet but
> it will also need to be tweaked slightly. I'll try to get
> that done before tomorrow's meeting.
>
> [1]
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Reorganized_Web_and_S
> oftware_provisions
> [2] http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Merging_Analysis
> [3]
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Analysis_of_impact_to
> _harmonization_with_WCAG_2.0_and_ISO.
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2007 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

Sean wrote:
> Contrast, Color and Flash don't really apply intrinsically to
> simple encoding types such as Unicode strings. It applies to
> their presentation, control of which may or may not be
> encoded in some other format or by a player. So you can't say
> a text document passes the contrast provision, but its
> presentation in an agent (possibly controlled by some other
> theme file) may do.

That's true. Would it be useful if we referred to situations
where the content was created and displayed in the same "player"
or "user agent"? For example, if I create a document in App X
and send it to someone else who reads it in App X, can't we
make certain useful assumptions about accessibility features?

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Merging Web and Software and what is Webcontent?

With both Gregg and Sean absent today, we obviously won't be making any
decisions on this but I think we should still discuss it for a few minutes.

I agree that the contrast provision is not applicable to Sean's example of
text documents but it is applicable to lots of other types of content. For
example, an image of text in a word processing document, text in a polygon
shape in a presentation document, text in colored cells in a spreadsheet,
etc.

I think what Sean is proposing is that the content format provisions are
the only thing we have that applies to all types of content. But we've
already noted that text can't pass the content format provisions so it
makes sense that it wouldn't pass these requirements.

Seems like there is an issue around types of content that includes the
presentation attributes vs. content where the presentation attributes may
be external.

I'll keep working on this.

Andi




"Jim Tobias"
<tobias@inclusive
.com> To
Sent by: "'TEITAC Web/Software
teitac-websoftwar Subcommittee'"
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
itac.org >
cc

07/25/2007 07:14 Subject
AM Re: [teitac-websoftware] Merging
Web and Software and what is
Webcontent?
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>






Sean wrote:
> Contrast, Color and Flash don't really apply intrinsically to
> simple encoding types such as Unicode strings. It applies to
> their presentation, control of which may or may not be
> encoded in some other format or by a player. So you can't say
> a text document passes the contrast provision, but its
> presentation in an agent (possibly controlled by some other
> theme file) may do.

That's true. Would it be useful if we referred to situations
where the content was created and displayed in the same "player"
or "user agent"? For example, if I create a document in App X
and send it to someone else who reads it in App X, can't we
make certain useful assumptions about accessibility features?