Thread Subject: Document vs electronic document

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Document vs electronic document

In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic documents - we
should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).



For example - it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.



The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages or documents can
be programmatically determined.




Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document

To address Gregg's concern, I have changed all occurrences of "document" to
"electronic document".

To Peter's concern, what is the objective you're trying to achieve? I don't
think we want to make it so that all text documents will pass. If someone
creates a table in a text file by using a monospaced font, lining things up
in columns, and drawing cell borders with ASCII characters, that should not
pass.

Andi




Peter Korn
<Peter.Korn@Sun.C
OM> To
Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc

Subject
08/14/2007 10:57 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Document
AM vs electronic document


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






Hi Gregg, Andi,

I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to "simple
document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we could specify this
for something like a "document content format", which implies a level of
richness and functionality. But not for all documents.

Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed this
richness, then maybe language like this could work.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic documents –
> we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
>
> For example – it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
>
> The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages or documents
> can be programmatically determined.
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
teitac-websoftware mailing list
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document

Good thought Peter

In WCAG we do have formatting that allow txt docs to be PD. But you can
only do somethings in the .txt doc. You can't do tables for example.

What to do with txt docs though should be a concerted decision here. I
think they should be covered - at least for Web.


2) I don't think redefining 'document' will work however because there need
to be paper documents and we can't hijack the word I don't think.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:57 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Document vs electronic document
>
> Hi Gregg, Andi,
>
> I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to
> "simple document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we
> could specify this for something like a "document content
> format", which implies a level of richness and functionality.
> But not for all documents.
>
> Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed
> this richness, then maybe language like this could work.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic
> documents -
> > we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
> >
> > For example - it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
> >
> > The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages
> or documents
> > can be programmatically determined.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> > Director - Trace R & D Center
> > University of Wisconsin-Madison
> > _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
> >
> > DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
> >
> > If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
> >
> > <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> >

From: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document

Hi Gregg, Andi,

I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to "simple
document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we could specify this
for something like a "document content format", which implies a level of
richness and functionality. But not for all documents.

Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed this
richness, then maybe language like this could work.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic documents –
> we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
>
> For example – it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
>
> The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages or documents
> can be programmatically determined.
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document

In the spirit of trying to keep the verbosity down, is this really
necessary? These are standards for electronic and information
technology - will people really be confused if we just say document?

AWK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Document vs electronic document
>
> To address Gregg's concern, I have changed all occurrences of
> "document" to "electronic document".
>
> To Peter's concern, what is the objective you're trying to
> achieve? I don't think we want to make it so that all text
> documents will pass. If someone creates a table in a text
> file by using a monospaced font, lining things up in columns,
> and drawing cell borders with ASCII characters, that should not pass.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Korn
>
> <Peter.Korn@Sun.C
>
> OM>
> To
> Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software
> Subcommittee
> teitac-websoftwar
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> itac.org
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> 08/14/2007 10:57 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware] Document
> AM vs electronic
> document
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Gregg, Andi,
>
> I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to
> "simple document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we
> could specify this for something like a "document content
> format", which implies a level of richness and functionality.
> But not for all documents.
>
> Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed
> this richness, then maybe language like this could work.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic
> documents -
> > we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
> >
> > For example - it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
> >
> > The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages
> or documents
> > can be programmatically determined.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> > Director - Trace R & D Center
> > University of Wisconsin-Madison
> > _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
> >
> > DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
> >
> > If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
> >
> > <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document

I think we are saying they shouldn't use them for some types of information.
Like tables.

Again - note that in WCAG we have methods described for accessible text
files - but they are limited to the type of presentation you get in emails.

In fact - now that I think of it. if your text file can survive multiple
replies with all their >> marks without being destroyed (as a table would)
- it probably passes (grin). (or rather - text that meets the guidelines
would still be usable after this.)




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:02 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Document vs electronic document
>
> Hi Andi,
>
> > To Peter's concern, what is the objective you're trying to
> achieve? I
> > don't think we want to make it so that all text documents
> will pass.
> > If someone creates a table in a text file by using a
> monospaced font,
> > lining things up in columns, and drawing cell borders with ASCII
> > characters, that should not pass.
> >
>
> I agree, that example should not pass. We know how to encode
> language into an HTML document. We know how to do so in ODF
> documents (and I presume PDF and OOXML and...). We don't
> know how to encode language into an "ASCII document" (e.g. a
> .txt file). When this provision was generalized from Web to
> everything, I think we overgeneralized.
>
> Do we want to say that governments cannot use .txt files anymore?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>
> > Hi Gregg, Andi,
> >
> > I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to "simple
> > document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we could
> specify this
> > for something like a "document content format", which
> implies a level
> > of richness and functionality. But not for all documents.
> >
> > Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed this
> > richness, then maybe language like this could work.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Peter Korn
> > Accessibility Architect,
> > Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> >
> >
> >> In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic
> documents
> >> - we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
> >>
> >> For example - it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
> >>
> >> The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages or
> >> documents can be programmatically determined.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gregg
> >>
> >> ------------------------
> >>
> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> >> Director - Trace R & D Center
> >> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> >> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
> >>
> >> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
> >>
> >> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
> >>
> >> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---
> >>
> >>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document

Hi Andi,

> To Peter's concern, what is the objective you're trying to achieve? I don't
> think we want to make it so that all text documents will pass. If someone
> creates a table in a text file by using a monospaced font, lining things up
> in columns, and drawing cell borders with ASCII characters, that should not
> pass.
>

I agree, that example should not pass. We know how to encode language
into an HTML document. We know how to do so in ODF documents (and I
presume PDF and OOXML and...). We don't know how to encode language
into an "ASCII document" (e.g. a .txt file). When this provision was
generalized from Web to everything, I think we overgeneralized.

Do we want to say that governments cannot use .txt files anymore?


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


> Hi Gregg, Andi,
>
> I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to "simple
> document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we could specify this
> for something like a "document content format", which implies a level of
> richness and functionality. But not for all documents.
>
> Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed this
> richness, then maybe language like this could work.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>
>> In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic documents –
>> we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
>>
>> For example – it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
>>
>> The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages or documents
>> can be programmatically determined.
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
>>
>> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>
>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>
>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> teitac-websoftware mailing list
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> teitac-websoftware mailing list
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware
> _______________________________________________
> teitac-websoftware mailing list
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware
>

_______________________________________________
teitac-websoftware mailing list
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document

We want to say governments must use the most accessible format that
meets the business needs, just as we say government must select the most
accessible EIT.



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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Korn
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:02 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Document vs electronic document

Hi Andi,

> To Peter's concern, what is the objective you're trying to achieve? I
> don't think we want to make it so that all text documents will pass.
> If someone creates a table in a text file by using a monospaced font,
> lining things up in columns, and drawing cell borders with ASCII
> characters, that should not pass.
>

I agree, that example should not pass. We know how to encode language
into an HTML document. We know how to do so in ODF documents (and I
presume PDF and OOXML and...). We don't know how to encode language
into an "ASCII document" (e.g. a .txt file). When this provision was
generalized from Web to everything, I think we overgeneralized.

Do we want to say that governments cannot use .txt files anymore?


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


> Hi Gregg, Andi,
>
> I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to "simple
> document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we could specify this
> for something like a "document content format", which implies a level
> of richness and functionality. But not for all documents.
>
> Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed this
> richness, then maybe language like this could work.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>
>> In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic documents
>> - we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
>>
>> For example - it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
>>
>> The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages or
>> documents can be programmatically determined.
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
>>
>> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>
>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>
>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>>