2.6 Software

[melaniephilipp]

Can examples be added like those under the Documents definition (Note 2)?

Which ICT category do the following fall into:

• Microsoft Word desktop application
• Microsoft Word Online
• The .docx file
• The online version of the document

[maryjom]

Thank you for taking the time to review the WCAG2ICT public draft. Our task force will review your comment and develop a response that we hope will address your concern. The response will be drafted in a comment on this issue, marked DRAFT RESPONSE until the Task Force reaches consensus.

[mitchellevan]

Thanks @melaniephilipp for submitting this issue. I understand your list of Microsoft-specific items as real-world examples only for purposes this discussion, not as a proposal to add very vendor-specific examples into WCAG2ICT Group Note.

Here are my thoughts (not Working Group consensus):

Microsoft Word desktop application and Microsoft Word Online are both software, but only the desktop application is non-web software. Non-web is anything that's not WCAG's definition of a web page.

A .docx file is typically a non-web document, but it could possibly also become a web based document if it met the definition ("non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI" etc.).

Some .docx files could also be software, e.g. if it contains VBA code and acts like an application.

Drawing a bright line between 'documents' and 'software' is not particularly important because WCAG applies similarly to both. Continuing with the example of the .docx file: if we describe Microsoft Word either online or installed as "platform software" (because its files can act like programs) or as a "user agent" (a particular kind of platform software), does it make a practical difference for WCAG applicability?

I don't know whether the WCAG2ICT Note needs any edits to address the above points. I feel the definitions are largely clear enough, but I'm open to any specific suggestions.

[sjarnold17]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts @mitchellevan. You highlight the intricacies of technology’s capabilities between web and non-web these days. Your explanation aligns with how I understand those 4 Microsoft-specific examples except for Microsoft Word Online being software. I’d consider it to be a web-based application rather than software. Can you explain your thinking on that a bit more?

As far as the definition of software goes, I understand it to be the antithesis of a web page (e.g. web resources, web mail program, etc.). The definition of software in the WCAG2ICT guidance uses software to define itself, which makes it difficult to parse out. Because of this, it would help to have practical examples of software like those included with the definitions of a web page (Examples 1-4) or a document (Note 2). For example, can a kiosk be considered to have “software aspects of hardware-software products”? If so, can kiosks be listed as an example of software?

What other products can be listed as examples of software?

[mraccess77]

Regarding web content in software - according to WCAG - embedded web content is not a web page and not covered
"For the purposes of conformance with these guidelines, a resource must be "non-embedded" within the scope of conformance to be considered a Web page."

We need these non-web ICT guidelines to cover embedded web content.

[maryjom]

@mraccess77 I would treat embedded web content in non-web software as non-web software. This is because one cannot determine which is web or non-web content when using the application. One cannot test individual web-based content from the software, nor access the DOM nor use any of the typical Web test tools to test it. This is how I characterized it my previous analysis in the second bullet of the web vs. non-web software - second bullet that says:

Web content/web widgets integrated into a native application would likely be considered non-web software.

[maryjom]

Final TF Answer:

The list of Microsoft-specific items are good real-world examples useful for this discussion. Non-web is anything that does not meet WCAG's definition of a web page.

To analyze various examples:

(for web vs. non-web software)

• Web-based applications are Web content. This means the software user interface components appear in the user agent's DOM, and the DOM is accessible by test tools. (This fits your example of Microsoft Word online.)
• Web content/web widgets integrated into a native application would likely be considered non-web software. The reasoning is that test professionals cannot use web test tools that access a DOM to test the accessibility information. They also may have difficulty identifying what aspects of the UI is web-based or not. (One example is a hybrid mobile application.)
• Native software applications are examples of non-web software. (This fits your example of Microsoft Word desktop application.)
• The aspects of a closed functionality product software defines the content and interactions in the user interface is non-web software. For example, what is displayed for the user to interact with or get information from. (Some kiosk software would fall into this category.)

If we describe Microsoft Word, whether online, installed as "platform software" (because its files can act like programs) or as a "user agent" (a particular kind of platform software), it doesn't really make a practical difference for WCAG applicability, in general.

(for web vs. non-web documents)

• A .docx file is typically a non-web document, but it could possibly also become a web-based document if it met the web page definition ("non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI" etc.).

However, some documents could also be software - if it acts like an application. (For example, a .docx file could also be software, e.g. if it contains VBA code and acts like an application.)

Conclusion: The WCAG2ICT document will not be modified to address the above points. Providing examples can make the document brittle as technology changes over time. Drawing a bright line between 'documents' and 'software' is not particularly important because WCAG applies similarly to both. The definitions are largely clear enough, but we are open to any specific suggestions you might have.

[maryjom]

Closing as answered.