"Sets of software" replacement for "Sets of web pages"

[patrickhlauke]

Gathering the side conversation from #225 for discussion.

assuming that the discussion around "set of software" is an attempt to translate "sets of web pages" ... wouldn't a more apt adaptation be "sets of related views/screens" within the same piece of software?

seems to group came to the conclusion that this would not be possible due to the difficulty in defining what a view/screen in a complex software application may be, and that this is an issue that even WCAG when applied to web content struggled with (caused by the arguably outdated - these days - idea that a "web page" is characterised by having its unique URI/URL, which causes problems in old-style SPAs or similar that don't also dynamically modify the address when switching between views).

if the TF indeed translated "sets of web pages" to mean "sets of software" for WCAG2ICT here, and if so suggest that this may not necessarily make much sense

"set of web pages" [...] refers to subcomponents of a website as a whole that is the subject of an assessment, while "software" is the whole that is being assessed. this seems to make little sense, regardless of the mitigation of "it doesn't happen often".

My two primary suggestions from that discussion:

I would rather suggest that WCAG2ICT would outright state that because "set of web pages" is rooted on the concept of "web page", and that in turn is rooted on - per the definition - a resource available at a particular URL, the whole idea is not applicable to software at all since it has no concept of a URL. Rather than making an ill-fitting stretch to mean "set of software".

Or refer to "set of software applications within a suite of applications", assuming that the subject of an assessment is indeed the suite as a whole. This would then have the same effect of immediately NOT applying to cases where a single standalone application on its own is assessed...it would only apply to suites.

noting that nowadays "suites" are few and far between (thinking back to the old days of mozilla which integrated a browser and a mail client.

whether the "within a set of web pages" SCs actually make much sense in the context of even a suite though is also debatable (e.g. whether they have a consistent navigation ... as it's possibly irrelevant whether they do or not, as they're different standalone software applications, so have different purposes - contrasted with the whole idea of "set of web pages" which indicates a much stronger relationship between the component web pages to form a single cohesive web site / section of a web site.

so my preference would actually be the first suggestion: outright stating that because the concept of "set of web pages" is rooted on "web page" meaning a unique URL, the whole idea does not translate to non-web ICT so the SCs are not applicable as written.

[GreggVan]

Grin Yes it would Patrick And we tried to figure out how to make the work in WCAG2ICT (the first one) and never could figure out how to define “VIEW” the term we used since what a persons sees changes ever time a toolbar is shown or hidden or moved or… and more We finally gave us saying that we could not figure out any way to make it testable — since we couldn’t figure out how to define a VIEW in any stable fashion. If you can figure that out — there are a lot of people on your side As to your comment that being rooted in a Web Page means it doesn’t apply to software — that doesn’t grok. Since most Web Apps are all at one URL — and WCAG therefore applies to that entire web app It would seem to apply to Apps (software) in exactly the same way it applies to web apps. RE suite of software applications — if you look at the definition of “set of software’ you will find that that definition is indeed for a suite of software — but it is even more restrictive — with lots of additional conditions. If we changed it to simply “suite of software” then a MUCH wider range of software would be cooped up into having to comply - than is true with our current treatment. Software that would have a very difficult time conforming. But good thoughts and let us know if you solve the VIEWs definition problem. Best Gregg

…

On Nov 13, 2023, at 2:36 PM, Patrick H. Lauke ***@***.***> wrote: Gathering the side conversation from #225 <#225> for discussion. assuming that the discussion around "set of software" is an attempt to translate "sets of web pages" ... wouldn't a more apt adaptation be "sets of related views/screens" within the same piece of software? seems to group came to the conclusion that this would not be possible due to the difficulty in defining what a view/screen in a complex software application may be, and that this is an issue that even WCAG when applied to web content struggled with (caused by the arguably outdated - these days - idea that a "web page" is characterised by having its unique URI/URL, which causes problems in old-style SPAs or similar that don't also dynamically modify the address when switching between views). if the TF indeed translated "sets of web pages" to mean "sets of software" for WCAG2ICT here, and if so suggest that this may not necessarily make much sense "set of web pages" [...] refers to subcomponents of a website as a whole that is the subject of an assessment, while "software" is the whole that is being assessed. this seems to make little sense, regardless of the mitigation of "it doesn't happen often". My two primary suggestions from that discussion: I would rather suggest that WCAG2ICT would outright state that because "set of web pages" is rooted on the concept of "web page", and that in turn is rooted on - per the definition - a resource available at a particular URL, the whole idea is not applicable to software at all since it has no concept of a URL. Rather than making an ill-fitting stretch to mean "set of software". Or refer to "set of software applications within a suite of applications", assuming that the subject of an assessment is indeed the suite as a whole. This would then have the same effect of immediately NOT applying to cases where a single standalone application on its own is assessed...it would only apply to suites. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#261>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXTH3EVKZBLU5IBABETYEKOIJAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7J32X6WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZRHE4TCNRQGA3DSNY>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

[patrickhlauke]

As to your comment that being rooted in a Web Page means it doesn’t apply to software — that doesn’t grok. Since most Web Apps are all at one URL — and WCAG therefore applies to that entire web app

Technically not though, if the entire web app is served from a single URL, then there can't - by definition - be a "set of web pages"

[patrickhlauke]

(also, a small request - if you respond to github threads via email, could you omit quoting the original message you're responding to? it just leads to excessive / unnecessary text here in your github comment)

[patrickhlauke]

Since most Web Apps are all at one URL

this is also not true these days. most modern web apps change the url in the browser's address bar as you move through their sections.

[patrickhlauke]

also, i now see that contrary to the threads and discussions that led me to actually file this, the term used in current wcag2ict is in fact "set of software applications", and not just "set of software". the latter made little to no sense on its face, which led me to question its use, while the former at least tracks a bit more logically.

[GreggVan]

Absolutely correct. Unless there are a set of Web Apps — in that case yes.

…

On Nov 14, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Patrick H. Lauke ***@***.***> wrote: As to your comment that being rooted in a Web Page means it doesn’t apply to software — that doesn’t grok. Since most Web Apps are all at one URL — and WCAG therefore applies to that entire web app Technically not though, if the entire web app is served from a single URL, then there can't - by definition - be a "set of web pages" — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#261 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXTR6BIHY74OVFDL4Q3YEPW37AVCNFSM6AAAAAA7J32X6WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMJRGUYDAOJZHE>. You are receiving this because you commented.

[GreggVan]

RE: (also, a small request - if you respond to github threads via email, could you omit quoting the original message sure, sorry - I was just scrambling through 397 emails I got since this morning and didn’t notice it was a GitHub

[maryjom]

FINAL TF ANSWER:
Patrick, Thanks as always for your candid questions, input, and remarks.

This comment is closely related to Issue #54. The TF will not be modifing the handling of these SC/this interpretation in this round of updates which are focused on incorporating newer versions of WCAG.

In the 2013 WCAG2ICT, we tried to indicate where particular SC were a "best practice" for non-web software. Some of these "sets of" SC were noted as such.

This TF update was not instituted to re-examine the interpretations previously negotiated over months. That said, other standards could choose to modify the WCAG SC to be more specific/appropriate for non-web software.

[maryjom]

Closing this issue as answered.