W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > October 2016

Re: The MQ (or not) issue; what we are seeking

From: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:04:33 +0000
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
CC: Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com>, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56208EFE-9BE1-4418-A54C-BC620E6FD821@benetech.org>
While that may be true that JS wasn’t permitted in EPUB 2 readers, the main point here is that publishers won’t put JS inside their EPUB files because certain distribution chains flat out reject any JS for just that point of potential security issues.  The reading system may or may not be able to support JS, which is why the default presentation must be an image with alt text, and only systems which understand MathML “could” expose the MathML to assistive technologies, if the user chooses to do so.  But ideally that mathML would be hidden visually but accessible to AT and the visual Image still present for low vision users and sighted assistants / teachers helping the reader navigate the MathML with AT.

Now there could be some older reading systems that may not honor the request to have the MathML offscreen/hidden and “could” display the presentational MathML visually in addition to the static image of the mathML, and this although undesired is something that we may just have to live with and make note of when testing on various reading systems.

The IDPF’s EPUB 3.1 Accessibility Task Force would like to have one or more examples of possible ways to "have our cake and eat it too”, which we will add to our EPUB 3.1 Accessibility Techniques document where we will list the pros and cons to each approach after testing the various options on as many reading systems we can.  Then leave it up to the publisher to decide which implementation they choose based on what their target markets are the results from our testing.

We would love as Florian has asked for some real examples that we can test against.

Thanks
EOM

Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre
Phone: 650-600-3301



> On Oct 6, 2016, at 4:44 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately, not.  Since JS wasn’t permitted in an EPUB 2 reader, there are many of those out there that do not even have a JS engine included.
> 
> Leonard
> 
> On 10/6/16, 1:07 AM, "Paul Topping" <pault@dessci.com> wrote:
> 
>    When it is suggested that there are ebook readers that don't support JavaScript, what is meant is that they don't support JS embedded in the ebook content itself. Am I correct? AFAIK, virtually all ebook readers are browser engine-based and use JS code in their implementation. They just don't want content to contain JS as it is a potential security risk. I only point this out in case it makes a difference in this MQ discussion.
> 
>    Paul
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Kerscher [mailto:kerscher@montana.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 6:44 PM
>> To: 'Liam R. E. Quin' <liam@w3.org>; 'Bill Kasdorf'
>> <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>; 'Alan Stearns' <stearns@adobe.com>;
>> 'Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken' <tsiegman@wiley.com>; Peter Krautzberger
>> <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>; public-digipub-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: The MQ (or not) issue; what we are seeking
>> 
>> You ask: "Does this have to work in ebook readers (which might or might not
>> support JavaScript) as well as in Web browsers?"
>> 
>> George responds: Yes, the publishers want to distribute their content into all
>> markets. The visual presentation is essential, and people using access
>> technology need to get at the semantically rich information.
>> 
>> Best
>> George
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Liam R. E. Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 5:52 PM
>> To: Bill Kasdorf; Alan Stearns; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; Peter Krautzberger;
>> public-digipub-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: The MQ (or not) issue; what we are seeking
>> 
>> On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 15:17 +0000, Bill Kasdorf wrote:
>>> What we need is an interim solution that will make it safe for
>>> publishers to deliver the MathML along with the image that they want
>>> displayed visually. For now.
>> support JavaScript) as well as in Web browsers?
>> 
>> Liam
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 



Received on Thursday, 6 October 2016 14:05:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:46 UTC