Edit comment LC-2822 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2821 Next: LC-2823

Comment LC-2822: 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:
2.5 Set of Software:

This section appears to have been sculpted in an attempt to (very narrowly) avoid current implementations of popular document authoring products (such as Microsoft Office). Maybe it snags Apache Open Office (because OO can open one app from another without opening an existing document) - I'm not sure. The details about how to construe a "set" seem ambiguous and arbitrary… and most importantly, I cannot determine how the distinctions offered are substantially relevant to accessibility in any nontrivial sense.

Perhaps one way to make this point is to ask: what sets of real-world software *does* this definition include? Is there an example? And if not, then what is the point of such a definition in the first place?

Or, am I to take away the impression that if Microsoft were to be so foolish as to add a feature that would provide for opening Excel from Word without going to the Start menu then all of a sudden their Office suite meets the definition of "set" in WCAG2ICT… and this is worth highlighting? I just don't get it.

Presumably, the practical effect of such a definition will be to cause implementers to avoid X, Y or Z features that might threaten to appear as "a set" while still delivering "suites" (not "sets") of software to users. I read through the usage of "set of software" in the Notes for various Success Criteria and I'm left fairly confused. The text feels very over-engineered. There appear to be nuances and shades of meaning that simply hint at ways to get into trouble. I got very little enhancement to my own understanding from all the sloshing about.

- Counterexamples, 2nd bullet is missing the words "is to" before "open a document".

- Counterexamples, 3rd bullet. How can it possibly matter how the software is *sold*? Isn't it more a question (I guess) of the installation rather than the procurement?; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: RESPONSE: "Set of Software" was not defined to include or exclude any particular package. Rather it was, in fact, carefully crafted to include software that is a set while excluding collections of software or any groupings of software. MS Office is a collection of programs that are sold separately, and are also sold in an number of different collections, with different combinations of programs included in each. There is no "office" collection that would constitute a set but there are many collections. (Note: the fact that a company only releases one collection does not make it a set either. It must meet the definition) And yes - a company might package or outfit their program to make it technically fall outside of the definition. However, that would only get them out of the couple of success criteria that deal with "sets" of software. These success criteria just relate to ways to move between the parts, and getting out of these provisions would not change things very much for the author or the user. In fact we note that true 'sets' of software are rare. Mostly we see an integrated software package or a collection of software - where users move between them like they would move between any other software. REGARDING YOUR QUESTION: - Counterexamples, 2nd bullet is missing the words "is to" before "open a document". RESPONSE Accepted - good suggestion. We will add the words. REGARDING YOUR QUESTION:- Counterexamples, 3rd bullet. How can it possibly matter how the software is *sold*? Isn't it more a question (I guess) of the installation rather than the procurement? RESPONSE An example is not definitive - it is an example. The word "sold" does not appear in the definition so it is not a required part. In this example we were pointing out that even though they were sold together, that did not make them a set. Being sold together is not a determining feature. Many things are bundled that are not sets.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)