Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web Publication?"

> Would be good if we got explicit agreement for this issue as well,

+1

Peter.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> I am fine with that formulation.
>
> I have made an additional commit on the Pull Request's Branch for this. If
> there are oppositions to the new formulation we can of course roll it back,
> but I wanted to be sure it is in place.
>
> It seems that the other issue that led to this PR (the definition of a
> PWP) is all right with everybody. Would be good if we got explicit
> agreement for this issue as well, so that I could merge the PR (and modify
> the relevant parts of the charter as well)
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On 1 Feb 2017, at 05:13, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I like it.
> It uses must in the same way as proposed by Ivan, and it is focused on the
> outcome instead of the underlying technologies.
> So, it is a good balance.
>
> With regards
> Avneesh
> *From:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 00:44
> *To:* 'Ivan Herman' <ivan@w3.org> ; 'Avneesh Singh' <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Leonard Rosenthol' <lrosenth@adobe.com> ; 'George Kerscher'
> <kerscher@montana.com> ; 'W3C Digital Publishing IG'
> <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> No technology I know of is inherently accessible, as accessibility isn't a
> technical failing point so much as authoring awareness of needs, as Ivan
> has pointed out. What we all want, I expect, is that web publications are
> not designed in such a way that they exclude the possibility of being made
> accessibly.
>
> In that light, I don't think the draft or charter statements are far off
> the mark. I was discussing with Avneesh, and would a statement like the
> following be acceptable to everyone: "It must be possible to make Web
> Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs
> and capabilities."
>
> Since we're not writing a specification, such a statement establishes the
> priority we need to have on accessible technologies without getting into
> the nitty-gritty details of authoring requirements.
>
> I would hope to see WP have a strong recommendation for accessible
> production, just like EPUB does, but a requirement probably only sets us up
> for a disconnect between what is claimed and the reality that it cannot be
> enforced.
>
> Matt
>
> *From:* Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org <ivan@w3.org>]
> *Sent:* January 31, 2017 1:35 PM
> *To:* Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>; George Kerscher <
> kerscher@montana.com>; W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org
> >
> *Subject:* Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
>
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2017, at 18:16, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ivan,
>
> My concern is that the statement
> "Web Publications must be built using technologies that allow for
> accessibility for every element of the publication." does not add much. It
> is an existing policy of W3C which we are reinforcing.
>
>
> That is correct. But, at this moment, we are discussing the introductory
> section of the PWP draft, where such reinforcement is, I think, a good
> idea. Hence my feeling we should use the text as proposed _in the PWP draft_
>
>
>
> I think that either we should make a stronger statement here
> or we should have stronger link with WCAG. We should be doing more than
> just placing work with WCAG as an coordination effort. After going through
> emails of Paul, Peter and Rick this looks as a good alternative.
>
>
> I have the impression that your comment is for the WG charter, which is
> different.
>
> However... if we are discussing the charter, the situation changes. I
> don't believe this working group should be responsible for work on WCAG now
> that publishing is in scope in the WCAG Working Group. It will be their
> job, so to say. What else would you think of doing in this Working Group in
> terms of a11y?
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With regards
> Avneesh
> *From:* Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 21:57
> *To:* Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> ; George Kerscher
> <kerscher@montana.com> ; W3C Digital Publishing IG
> <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2017, at 15:46, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ivan,
>
> Can we strengthens the 2nd statement i.e.
> Web Publications must be built using technologies that ensure
> accessibility for every element of the publication.
>
>
>
> As opposed to
>
> "Web Publications must be built using technologies that allow for
> accessibility for every element of the publication."
>
> right? I must admit I do not think I fully grasp the major difference
> here. If I grasp it right, then I am not sure I like it:-(
>
> Indeed, for me, using the word 'ensure' seems to go in direction that the
> enduser/author is _required_ to use that a11y technology. And that comes
> back to the discussion on whether we can _require_ (as in a 'MUST') that
> each and every WP must be accessible. And the reason why I was always
> opposed to that is that this is an unenforceable requirement. More exactly,
> unenforceable by technical means, only by legal means, and I do not think
> we are supposed to get into that realm. The terminology I proposed (well…
> not 'I'; this was the outcome of the discussion on the call) means that if
> the author aims at the creation of an accessible publication, then he/she
> has the possibility, technically, to do so. This is as far as a technical
> specification can go, in my view.
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
>
> With regards
> Avneesh
> *From:* Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 18:39
> *To:* Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> *Cc:* Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> ; George Kerscher
> <kerscher@montana.com> ; W3C Digital Publishing IG
> <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> Oops, I did not see this mail while I was doing the changes on the
> document, see
>
> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp/pull/40
>
> Avneesh, Leonard, do you agree with what is there now? To make the
> discussion simpler, this is the full text of the accessibility paragraph:
>
> [[
> <p>A Web Publication should be accessible to the broadest possible range
> of readers.
> That means that Web Publications must be built using technologies that
> allow for accessibility for every element of the publication.
> This includes general WCAG and WAI requirements of the W3C, but may also
> include additional accessibility requirements specific to Web Publications.
> Profiles of Web Publications may also be defined with more stringent
> accessibility
> requirements on the publications themselves.</p>
> ]]
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:40, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> I am perfectly fine with that wording, because it’s a should and not a
> must.  It’s the use of must that I am arguing against, since in a standard,
> that is a mandated requirement.  Should is a strong recommendation, and I
> agree, that we want to give that type of recommendation.
>
> So if you are fine with the wording “WP/PWP should be accessible to the
> extent possible, and should conform to WCAG” – so am I.
>
> Leonard
>
> *From: *Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:25 AM
> *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "kerscher@montana.com" <
> kerscher@montana.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> “WP/PWPs can be made accessible but need not be so”
> Hi Leonard, this is exactly the statement that is troubling me.
> Our approach is: WP/PWP should be accessible to the extent possible, and
> should conform to WCAG. i.e. must for accessibility in general and should
> for WCAG conformance.
> This means that it is not mandatory to conform to WCAG, but accessibility
> is a requirement.
>
> This will be in line with the world wide efforts for reinforcing
> accessibility in publication's, while giving adequate flexibility to new
> developments that may not conform to WCAG at early stage.
>
> With regards
> Avneesh
> *From:* Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 00:45
> *To:* Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> ; George Kerscher
> <kerscher@montana.com> ; 'DPUB mailing list' <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> Avneesh – as I mentioned on the call today, do not conflate the work on
> Web Publications (and Portable Web Publications) with that of the evolution
> of EPUB.  These are two separate work items clearly spelled out as such in
> the DRAFT Charter.
>
> I would expect that the evolution of EPUB does mandate accessibility just
> as it does today.  I don’t believe anyone has stated otherwise.
> What I am have pushing back on is that WP/PWPs can be made accessible but
> need not be so.
>
> Leonard
>
> *From: *Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM
> *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "kerscher@montana.com" <
> kerscher@montana.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> It looks that my q+ command could not go through in today’s call.
> Therefore I will like to add comments to the thread.
>
> Firstly it would be important to get some clarification on, is term
> “Accessibility” equivalent to “WCAG”?
> If it is not equivalent, and the term “accessibility” is more flexible
> then it is easier to place it as a “must”.
>
> I heard argument of Ivan, that accessibility is “strong should” and not a
> “must” in W3C. I completely understand it.
> For publications accessibility we have 2 objectives.
> 1. Accessibility should be a stronger force in publications than other web
> technologies because education in many countries emphasize accessibility.
> It was well stated by Luc, and was also recognized during use case
> development.
> 2. The new transformation of EPUB that comes from W3C WG should have
> accessibility embedded in it from its birth. We should not repeat the
> history of EPUB, where accessibility became a high priority only in the
> version 3.
>
> I would suggest 2 actions for the charter:
> 1. If the term “accessibility” is more flexible than “WCAG” then we should
> state that web publication must be accessible to the extent possible.
> 2. We should increase the emphasis on our work with WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 3.
> The objective of our work is to ensure that WCAG is applicable to web
> publication's.
>
> With regards
> Avneesh
> *From:* Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 00:10
> *To:* George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com> ; 'DPUB mailing list'
> <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> George, I completely agree with you about the need (or, as you said,
> better – right!) for accessible documents.  And I do want to make sure that
> we take every step possible to make it as easy as possible for authors to
> produce accessible WPs – and identify them as such.   I also expect that
> for profiles of WP focused on “publications that are fit for  public
> consumption and sale”, the mandating of accessibility (such as is done
> today with EPUB) is almost a given.
>
> But there are also use cases for WP’s where accessibility need not be
> mandated (or, oddly enough, even necessary).  And WP itself – as the
> “baseline” for the various profiles described in the PWP document (and the
> WG draft charter) – needs to be flexible enough to address both those cases
> (and more).
>
> Leonard
>
> *From: *"kerscher@montana.com" <kerscher@montana.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 12:10 PM
> *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' <
> public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> Dear Leonard,
> Where you write:
> Here’s the one where George, Charles and others are going to be scream –
> but I believe it is an extremely important point – you can’t mandate
> accessibility in a WP (ie. “A Web Publication must be accessible to the
> broadest possible range of readers”). We should make it a strong
> recommendation (a “should” vs. a “shall” in ISO terminology) and do all we
> can to promote this direction.  However, given our goals to support not
> only curated publications but also ad-hoc publications, it is not
> reasonable to expect them all to be accessible.  Just as not every page on
> the web is accessible, web publications need not be either.
>
> You are correct about me objecting. It is said that, “Silence is
> violence.” And I am not going to be silent on this
>
> Access to information is a civil right in many nations  and the
> “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) treaty
> supports this, and as I have said, it is a human right.
>
> I am a very practical guy and understand that it is extremely difficult to
> make all materials accessible to all people. In EPUB 3.1, we have theEPUB
> Accessibility Conformance and Discovery specification, which identifies a
> baseline for accessibility. Also, in the WCAG 2.1 developments that are
> kicking off, digital publishing is in scope.
>
> So, I think this will require significant discussion, but I feel that
> metadata will be very important in the identification of publications that
> are fit for  public consumption and sale.
>
> Best
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com <lrosenth@adobe.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 9:16 AM
> *To:* DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org) <
> public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
> *Importance:* High
>
> While working on the PWP document today, I can into a few things that I’d
> like to raise for discussion (either via email or phone tomorrow, or both).
>
> Let’s start right up front with the definition of a Web Publication J.
> It currently reads “A Web Publication (WP) is a bounded collection of
> resources, envisioned and created as a whole”.  I would like to review the
> second half of that sentence – about the envisioned and created as a
> whole.  In the world of documents, the most popular feature of processing
> applications is the ability to combine parts of other documents together to
> create a new one.  In that use case, the resources weren’t “envisioned and
> created as a whole”.  You could say that the author/publisher envisioned
> that collection and intentionally collated those resources together – but
> that’s different from what is here.  I would also put forth that the
> application of annotations to a WP can create a new WP that also was not
> “envisioned and created as a whole”.
>
>
> There is a requirement that “The package must include the unique
> identifier of the manifestation—a Web Publication’s origin is essential
> information if a PWP becomes portable”.  Two paragraphs later it goes into
> further detail about the origin inclusion and even mentions trust.
> Unfortunately, that requirement seems to imply some potential
> implementation considerations that the WebPackaging work is proving to not
> be feasible – see https://github.com/dimich-g/webpackage/issues/7.  I
> would like to remove the second half of that sentence (about the origin)
> and also remove the bit about trust from the latest paragraph.  Let’s just
> leave it open that we want a unique identifier, but that’s it, and that the
> origin is not necessarily related to the identifier.
>
>
> Here’s the one where George, Charles and others are going to be scream –
> but I believe it is an extremely important point – you can’t mandate
> accessibility in a WP (ie. “A Web Publication must be accessible to the
> broadest possible range of readers”). We should make it a strong
> recommendation (a “should” vs. a “shall” in ISO terminology) and do all we
> can to promote this direction.  However, given our goals to support not
> only curated publications but also ad-hoc publications, it is not
> reasonable to expect them all to be accessible.  Just as not every page on
> the web is accessible, web publications need not be either.
>
>
> Another area that we cannot mandate – but should make a strong
> recommendation – is that “A Web Publication must be available and
> functional while the user is offline”. An author may produce a publication
> that is only designed to be used online – for example, one that connects to
> an online system. We don’t wish to prevent the development of such a
> publication.
>
>
> Finally, I think we say too much about the use of the manifest.  It says
> “We also introduce the abstract concept of a manifest, which serves to
> carry information about the constituent resources of the publication, their
> sequence, and presentation”.  I think we should only say that it carries
> the resources and not mention sequence and presentation. This is consistent
> with our statement, earlier in the same section, about how we aren’t going
> to define “manifest” (and leave it in the generic FRBR sense).
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>