RE: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Publish "ARIA D-Pub Roles" FPWD

Hi James,

Thanks for the feedback. We are requesting comments along with publishing the FPWD and will respond to all issues over the next several weeks. We welcome feedback and comments, especially from the accessibility and publishing communities.

I will respond to one point to clarify what I believe is a misconception:
The reason all ebooks have an automated Table of Contents is that they include declarative markup stating that a specific component is THE table of contents. This is either <nav epub:type="toc"> from the EPUB Structural Semantics Vocabulary [1] or its predecessor, the DAISY-based NCX file [2]. The terms in the DPUB-ARIA module draw from the EPUB vocabulary.

[1] http://www.idpf.org/epub/vocab/structure/
[2] http://www.idpf.org/epub/20/spec/OPF_2.0.1_draft.htm#Section2.4.1

Happy Fourth,
Tzviya

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

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:57 AM
To: James Craig
Cc: janina@rednote.net; W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
Subject: Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Publish "ARIA D-Pub Roles" FPWD



Rich Schwerdtfeger

James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>> wrote on 07/01/2015 08:15:15 PM:

> From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-
> pfwg@w3.org<mailto:pfwg@w3.org>>, W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-dpub-aria@w3.org>>
> Date: 07/01/2015 08:16 PM
> Subject: Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Publish "ARIA D-Pub Roles" FPWD
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
> <schwer@us.ibm.com<mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I can respond to the following now:
> >
> > dpub-toc: directory maps to a list in all the platforms.
>
> If you think that's a problem, address it via vendor ERs or in the
> Core AAM, but documents should still use "directory" role instead of
> a redundant "toc" role.
>
I am not convinced. We map it to lists to lists and directories to lists. What if the table of contents is not build like a list? What if it is built like a Tree? This is too restrictive. They are thinking of toc as a region versus a structural object.

> > One would expect that lists can appear throughout a book. If I
> wanted to go to THE table of contents it would not work.
>
> Sounds like a problem with your book reader. Which one are you
> using? Navigation to the table of contents if standard in every
> reader I've ever used. It's standardized in other ways that do not
> require role overlap.
>
> > There is no distinction. I could see us subclassing directory however.
> > mapping: http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/core-aam/core-
> aam.html#role-map-directory
> >
> > dpub-part: is a name, apparently well known in the publication
> space. I will let Tzviya respond to that.
>
> "dpub-chaptergroup" might be a better name.
>
The the task for on this will want to respond formally but the problem I see arising is that we are trying to redefine terms commonly known by the publishing industry. My concern is that we put too tight a vice-grip on things that we cause people to not use the technology. I think these are good suggestions but we need to recognize that they have a terminology they are accustomed to using. If we define new words for that it will lead to confusion by book authors. They are going to use these roles for more than AT interoperability. They are going to be exposed to book publishers in authoring tools.

Let's see what they come back with. They did put this in their vocab space so at least we are not going to see conflicts.



> > bibliography is not abbreviated.
>
> :-/
>
> > However, we can look at the abbreviations. I can see where
> changing qna to questionsandanswers may get pushback as q and a are
> pretty well understood.
>
> It's still unclear why an extra role is needed. This is just a <dl>.
> or a "group" that surrounds a <dl>. The clarification if how this
> group is unique would be made apparent by the group's label. e.g.
> aria-labelledby="qnaheader"
>
> If there is an extra role, it should be to include the 1:1 mapping
> to HTML5: "descriptionlist", perhaps.
>
> > Rich
> >
> > Rich Schwerdtfeger
> >
> > From:   James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>>
> > Date:   06/25/2015 02:25 PM
> >
> >> I support the FPWD with these comments/issues.
> >>
> >> 1. Please link all the ISSUES notes to their respective issues.
> >>
> >> 2. dpub-toc is unnecessary. Use the general ARIA 1.0 role
> "directory" whose description is "Authors should use this role for a
> static table of contents, whether linked or unlinked. This includes
> tables of contents built with lists, including nested lists."
> >>
> >> 3. Role name abbreviation is still very inconsistent.
> "bibliography", "biblioref", "biblioterm", "qna"... Please note that
> ARIA does not abbreviate role names (except for one oversight, "img")
> >>
> >> 4. "dpub-part" is still too generic a name, and the previously
> filed issue/bug is not mentioned.
> >>
> >> 5. "dpub-noteref" and "dpub-glossref" are unnecessary. These are
> simple links. There is no need for another role.
> >>
> >> Most of this and other feedback was previously provided but does
> not appear to be addressed or mentioned.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jun 24, 2015, at 8:44 AM, janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Colleagues:
> >>>
> >>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Protocols and Formats Working
> >>> Group (PFWG) to approve a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) publication
> >>> of "WAI-ARIA Digital Publishing Module, Version 1.0" as requested by the
> >>> ARIA-Dpub Subteam at:
> >>>
> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2015May/0027.html
> >
> >
>

Received on Thursday, 2 July 2015 19:15:23 UTC