Edit comment LC-2821 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2820 Next: LC-2822

Comment LC-2821: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Duff Johnson <duff@duff-johnson.com>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
2.4 Set of Documents:

Why are "sets of documents" that are organized by means other than referring to each other or linking not included? I can think of many cases that I don't know how to address based on the definition provided. Some examples that pop immediately to mind...

- A single PDF in which many individual documents have been collated. The sub-documents (if we want to call them that) aren't referenced or linked, but (contra Note 1) they do have semantic significance as a "set" nonetheless because they exist as specific, identifiable, individually targetable (i.e., navigable) pages in a given file. Navigation could occur via bookmarks, scripts, actions, "pages" view (thumbnails)… things not mentioned in WCAG2ICT.

- A PDF with 5 attachments. The attachments are not referenced in the text, nor is a link provided. Is this a "set"? If not, why not? Most UIs would present it as such.

- Multiple PDF files in which bookmarks or actions (not textual references or link annotations) are used to connect one PDF to another (in UI terms).

- An HTML page with links to multiple PDF files - is this an example of a "set of documents"? Does it differ from a set of PDFs deployed together in some other way?

- A PDF in which additional documents (pages or attachments, or rich media annotations) are exposed to the user based on scripting functionality (as opposed to links).

- I take qualifying "set of documents" and republish (bundle) them together into a super-set, thus meeting the conditions for Note 1. Does this mean WCAG2ICT should not apply? Or, does it continue to apply only within each element of the super-set, and not to the super-set itself? Does it matter whether or not the super-set is a "publication" or not?; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: These are treated together since the answers are all related; Resolution: QUESTION: Why are "sets of documents" that are organized by means other than referring to each other or linking not included? I can think of many cases that I don't know how to address based on the definition provided. Some examples that pop immediately to mind..." RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION The definition of SET was carefully crafted to both capture the same sense of the term as intended or equivalent to the use of the term in WCAG -- and to create a clear definition that can be applied in this case. *This is not an attempt to generically define the term "set of applications" or "set of software".* A set of web pages on a website is a (sub)set of content created by a single author, who designed those pages to be collected together in a set. Our definition is meant ONLY to be "the way that 'set of documents/software' should be interpreted when using it to try to apply this success criterion to non-web documents (or software), and our definition carries forward that "designed to be together" concept to non-web documents (and likewise non-web software). With this in mind - the question is not whether there can't be other definitions for the term "set" but whether this success criterion should be enforced for this group of documents or software. So the comments below are not whether someone (in some general or dictionary context) might consider this a set, but whether a group of documents (or software) should be considered as a set when interpreting the way success WCAG 2.0 criteria would be applied to non-web ICT. That is, which groups of documents (or software) should be subject to the WCAG 2.0 success criteria that refer to sets. A second issue is whether there is any ambiguity in the WCAG2ICT definition. In your examples, the only ambiguity we find, is where you do not provide any information about the groups of documents (or software). Finally comments are provided on why we drew the line so that some collections of documents fall intentionally fall outside of the set. NOTE: Your questions, though not directed to our definition of DOCUMENT, did highlight that our definition of document should be examined. Answers to your questions and a proposed edit to the definition of "document" are provided below. QUESTION: - A single PDF in which many individual documents have been collated. The sub-documents (if we want to call them that) aren't referenced or linked, but (contra Note 1) they do have semantic significance as a "set" nonetheless because they exist as specific, identifiable, individually targetable (i.e., navigable) pages in a given file. Navigation could occur via bookmarks, scripts, actions, "pages" view (thumbnails)… things not mentioned in WCAG2ICT. RESPONSE True a single file (a zip, a pst, or a PDF) could contain multiple documents. Our definition of Set of Documents makes is clear that such a collection would not count as a set unless someone 'published them together and linked them all to each other'. This was done specifically to avoid having any random collection of convenience be considered a set and be subject to the WCAG 2.0 success criteria related to sets. People should be able to create collections and release them without having to treat them as if they were an intentional set of things rather than just a collection. Your comment does raise an interesting question about our definition of document. There is no mention of publishing -- so any hard drive, email program file, or even an email with multiple attachments, would itself meet our definition of 'document'. We are therefore changing the definition BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING PHRASE: "THAT FUNCTIONS AS A SINGLE ITEM RATHER THAN A COLLECTION," so that it reads <begin definition> document (as used in WCAG2ICT) assembly of content, such as a file, set of files, or streamed media THAT FUNCTIONS AS A SINGLE ITEM RATHER THAN A COLLECTION, that is not part of software, and that does not include its own user agent Note 1: A document always requires a user agent to present its content to the user. Note 2: Letters, spreadsheets, emails, books, pictures, presentations, and movies are examples of documents. Note 3: Software configuration and storage files such as databases and virus definitions, as well as computer instruction files such as source code, batch/script files, and firmware, are examples of files that function as part of software and thus are not examples of documents. If and where software retrieves “information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user” from such files, it is just another part of the content that occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software. Where such files contain one or more embedded documents, the embedded documents remain documents under this definition. Note 4: A collection of files zipped together into an archive, stored within a single virtual hard drive file, or stored in a single encrypted file system file, do not constitute a single document when so collected together. The software that archives/encrypts those files or manages the contents of the virtual hard drive does not function as a user agent for the individually collected files in that collection because that software is not providing a non-fully functioning presentation of that content. Note 5: Anything that can present its own content without involving a user agent, such as a self playing book, is not a document but is software. Note 6: A single document may be composed of multiple files such as the video content, closed caption text, etc. This fact is not usually apparent to the end-user consuming the document / content. This is similar to how a single web page can be composed of content from multiple URIs (e.g. the page text, images, the JavaScript, a CSS file etc.). Example: An assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for a movie would be a document. CounterExample: A binder file used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case would not be a document. <end definition> QUESTION: - A PDF with 5 attachments. The attachments are not referenced in the text, nor is a link provided. Is this a "set"? RESPONSE: See revised definition above. If the PDF is meant to function as a single entity it would be a document. If the PDF and the attachments are meant to be a set with the PDF (say a Manual consisting of an introduction and 5 attached policy documents that all interlink with the Introduction) then they would be a set. If the PDF was an introduction to 5 separate policy documents that happen to be gathered together with the introduction PDF linking to them (one way), then it would be a collection, but not a purpose build set -- according to the WCAG2ICT definition. These three cases can be (now that we have changed the definition of 'document' thank you ) unambiguously determined by applying the definitions. The reason why it is defined this way is: a) If it was an email with its attachments captured as PDF - it should not be considered a set -- because the authors of the documents that are attached could not possibly meet all of the success criteria talk about 'sets of documents' when they had no idea that their documents would later become part of a set; and b) the author of the email would often not have permission to edit the attachments -- so they could not make them meet the criteria for a set; and c) we did not want (a) and (b) to combine and make it impossible for anyone to attach things to their email and have them meet the guidelines -- since there is in fact to accessibility issue. It is not reasonable to expect every collection of docs to meet the success criteria. Most user interfaces would present a collection as a collection; as a group. But they would not DEFINE them as a "set" and WCAG2ICT does not either. QUESTION: - Multiple PDF files in which bookmarks or actions (not textual references or link annotations) are used to connect one PDF to another (in UI terms). RESPONSE: Again - this might nor might not qualify depending on whether they met all of the conditions in the definition. Each of the parts of the definition of "set" is essential in order to limit the groups or collections of documents (software) that would fall within scope of the success criteria that deal with 'sets' (and are not designed to apply to any random groups or collections). The definitions were designed such that when a person asked "should this group of documents (or software) in front me have to meet these success criteria that talk about "set of non-web documents" or (set of software)" the answer is YES only when it is important for accessibility for that group to meet those success criteria. QUESTION: - An HTML page with links to multiple PDF files - is this an example of a "set of documents"? RESPONSE: We are presuming you are talking about an HTML page that is not on the web - or else it would not be a WCAG2ICT issue. So assuming you mean an HTML page - not on the web... Again - Not enough information is provided to tell if the HTML page meets the definition. If it meets the definition then yes. If not, then no, for the reasons cited above. This question appears to be the same as the questions above, just changing the form (technology) of one of the documents. But WCAG and thus WCAG2ICT are technology neutral, so changing the technology of one of the pages will not change the answer. QUESTION: - A PDF in which additional documents (pages or attachments, or rich media annotations) are exposed to the user based on scripting functionality (as opposed to links). RESPONSE: Only if they are exposed in a manner that meets the definition. Why do we limit it this way? Because they might be documents created by a different author -- and this author is just linking to them. So they are a collection -- but the authors of those individual docs should not be expected to make their documents work together with other arbitrary documents that this person happens to link to along with theirs. QUESTION: - I take [a] qualifying "set of documents" and republish (bundle) them together into a super-set, thus meeting the conditions for Note 1. Does this mean WCAG2ICT should not apply? Or, does it continue to apply only within each element of the super-set, and not to the super-set itself? Does it matter whether or not the super-set is a "publication" or not? RESPONSE: WCAG2ICT is not a standard -- so it never applies or doesn’t apply. But to speak to the general question you ask. If you have a "set of documents" as defined by WCAG2ICT, and you add other documents or "sets" to create a larger collection, the original sets remain sets (as long as you don't break them up) but the larger collection does not become a set. It is a collection of sets and documents. It does not matter whether you publish them or not. The only way the larger collection would become a set - is if it met the definition of a set itself. To determine that, apply the different parts of the definition. If they are all true, then it would meet the definition of 'set' as it is used in WCAG2ICT. Note: documents (or software), if deployed separately and later brought together - are usually a group or collection rather than a set. Also note, If they are a set and are separated, they are no longer a set and do not need to meet the definition of set.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)