- From: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:14:04 -0500
- 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>
- Message-ID: <02e701d27bf6$306dd000$91497000$@gmail.com>
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] 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 <mailto: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: <mailto:ivan@w3.org> Ivan Herman Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 21:57 To: <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> Avneesh Singh Cc: <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> Leonard Rosenthol ; <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> George Kerscher ; <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org> W3C Digital Publishing IG Subject: Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web Publication?" On 31 Jan 2017, at 15:46, Avneesh Singh < <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> 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: <mailto:ivan@w3.org> Ivan Herman Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 18:39 To: <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> Leonard Rosenthol Cc: <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> Avneesh Singh ; <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> George Kerscher ; <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org> W3C Digital Publishing IG 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> 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 < <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> 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 < <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> avneesh.sg@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:25 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol < <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> lrosenth@adobe.com>, " <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> kerscher@montana.com" < <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> kerscher@montana.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' < <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org> 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: <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> Leonard Rosenthol Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 00:45 To: <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> Avneesh Singh ; <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> George Kerscher ; <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org> 'DPUB mailing list' 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 < <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> avneesh.sg@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol < <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> lrosenth@adobe.com>, " <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> kerscher@montana.com" < <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> kerscher@montana.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' < <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org> 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: <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> Leonard Rosenthol Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 00:10 To: <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> George Kerscher ; <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org> 'DPUB mailing list' 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: " <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> kerscher@montana.com" < <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> kerscher@montana.com> Date: Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 12:10 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol < <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com> lrosenth@adobe.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' < <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org> 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> mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 9:16 AM To: DPUB mailing list ( <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org> public-digipub-ig@w3.org) < <mailto: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 :). 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> 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/> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Technical Lead Home: <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2017 19:14:44 UTC