RE: prioritization attempt here

Thanks, Deb

We need to be careful about the use of terms like “can” “must” “should”. We aren’t writing a spec, but we are writing a note that we want to be taken as requirements for a spec, and we have some internal contradictions. Looking at skippability, we say that the function CANNOT be restricted to AT, but SHOULD be an option for visual and aural. I think these should both be SHOULDs? Same with escapability.


I think we need to offer an inline definition of skippability. It’s not a word that most readers will have encountered (I think). Working from the DAISY documentation,

Suggestion for UA WG: User agents need to implement skippability, or the option to configure the user agent to skip over any element (chunk?). This function should not be confined to users of AT.

Page numbers: add reference to DPUB-ARIA page-break and page-list (https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-aria-1.0/#doc-pagebreak)

2.5 and A.4: in preparing for EPUB 3.1, we learned that CSS Speech is hardly used. Just something to be aware of. (We could note that SMIL is widely used, and is XML. We need to find a way to make it work better with HTML.)

Do we really want to list items with “no action item” in the appendix?  I am especially unsure about mentioning Annotations. There will be an a11y review of all the specs associated with anno. If we  are not raising specific concerns, why mention it? Same with footnotes. This issue is already mentioned in the “effect of layout” section. Perhaps, this is a more specific use case?

Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Deborah Kaplan [mailto:dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:25 PM
To: public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: prioritization attempt here

http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/

And also some wordsmithing.