Re: Meta Data

Hi Tzviya

The WIKI seems to be documenting the Schema.org accessibility properties,
which is helpful but I'm not sure what I could recommend for that page
given that it just documents what's in the standard, through an
accessibility lens. Maybe I'm missing something.

My proposal is to introduce a simply way to report conformance through meta
data, and the properties I proposed where because I didn't see anything on
Screma.org that did that.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <
tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
>
>
> Proposing new Properties and their values to schema.org is not quite the
> same as making editorial changes to the wiki. It took months of work for
> the existing properties to be approved by the schema.org CG. These
> proposals look great, but they would need to be proposed to the committee.
>
>
>
> The changes that we can make at this point are to the language in
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility. There is no explicit
> mention of WCAG anywhere on this site. Would you recommend mentioning WCAG
> on this site? Can you provide specific language?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tzviya
>
>
>
> *Tzviya Siegman*
>
> Information Standards Lead
>
> Wiley
>
> 201-748-6884
>
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:12 PM
> *To:* 'David MacDonald'; 'Matt Garrish'; 'George Kerscher'; Siegman,
> Tzviya - Hoboken; 'Wilco Fiers'
> *Cc:* 'WCAG'; 'Charles LaPierre'; 'Avneesh Singh'
> *Subject:* RE: Meta Data
>
>
>
> Changing Wilco’s email to his Deque one (wilco.fiers@deque.com )
>
>
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <703-371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca
> <david100@sympatico.ca>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:09 PM
> *To:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <
> w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>;
> Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com>; Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh
> Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Meta Data
>
>
>
> On the call today it was decided to move forward with a new AAA for
> MetaData from DPUB perhaps something simple like
>
>
>
> SC XXXX Metatdata: Metadata is provided which describes the accessibility
> characteristics of the content
>
>
>
> The understanding could reference Schema.org
>
>
>
> It was also requested by dPUB for us to propose any new Meta Data terms
> for Scema.org we'd like to see. I suggest the following:
>
>
>
> (1) The WCAG level of conformance claimed
>
> (2) The technology relied upon for conformance
>
>
>
> For the first property I could see something like this:
>
>
>
> accessibilityConformance:
>
>
>
> with the following values for each of the WCAG 2 and 2.1 Levels and more
> could be added if further standards show up.
>
>
>
> levelWCAG2-A
>
> levelWCAG2-AA
>
> levelWCAG2-AAA
>
> levelWCAG2v1-A
>
> levelWCAG2v1-AA
>
> levelWCAG2v1-AAA
>
>
>
>
>
> ​I'm not sure how to do the 2nd. Technology relied upon​, because i'd hate
> to limit the values.  Maybe just start with the conformance level.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Michael Pluke <
> Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David
>
>
>
> I recall that a “set of software programs” was something that few of us
> have experienced although one member of the Task Force assured us that he
> had spotted one “in the wild”. I couldn’t recall whether we agreed that a
> set of documents was similarly rare (although I think that, with the very
> tight conditions, it probably is).
>
>
>
> I do recall that one of the arguments for not including these success
> criteria for documents was the concern that a large amount of time could be
> spent by people evaluating to the standard to search through what could be
> large ICT systems trying to identify if there were any sets of software –
> only to get a negative answer in almost all cases. I also recall that a
> problem could be that something that did meet the set of documents at one
> point might no longer be a set of documents if updates to part of the set
> were made.
>
>
>
> Overall, the conclusion were that:
>
>
>
> -          including the interpretation of these success criteria in the
> form that they were written was unlikely to lead to an improvement in
> accessibility for the vast majority of ICT procurements (in the same way
> that they are for Web pages);
>
> -          much time could be wasted in all ICT procurements trying to
> identify if any of these rare sets of documents existed.
>
>
>
> This resulted in the decision not to include them (in their current form).
> I’m not sure that the case is strong enough to merit revisiting that
> conclusion.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* 23 November 2016 16:55
> *To:* Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
> *Cc:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
> Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <
> w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>;
> George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>; Charles LaPierre <
> Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: DPUB Set of Web Pages
>
>
>
> Hi Mike
>
>
>
> It might be worth it to loop the member of your team who felt it necessary
> for the EU to diverge from the WCAG2ICT on those specific issues... we did
> agree on the WCG2ICT that a "set of documents" would not be common in the
> document world, but it did work when applied to documents, which
> facilitated consensus on the WCAG2ICT for the entire adoption of WCAG to
> Software and documents.
>
>
>
> I often find in standards, as you may have experienced, that sometimes
> just sitting down and talking together helps us unify and make stronger
> global standards that are not splintered. I'd be keen to sit down with your
> technician and see if we can come together.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Michael Pluke <
> Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> I certainly wouldn’t recommend a solution that ignores those requirements.
> As I said, I wish you luck in getting a good solution to enable you to
> include them. If you succeed I, for one, would push to have this solution
> incorporated in any future update of EN 301 549!
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 23 November 2016 16:06
> *To:* 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Cc:* 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL' <
> ryladog@gmail.com>; 'Wilco Fiers' <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; 'Siegman,
> Tzviya - Hoboken' <tsiegman@wiley.com>; 'George Kerscher' <
> kerscher@montana.com>; 'Charles LaPierre' <Charlesl@benetech.org>;
> 'Avneesh Singh' <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* RE: DPUB Set of Web Pages
>
>
>
> Yes, this is interesting, but I'm not sure how to respond. As we work to a
> web publication definition, there are challenges we'll need to address, but
> I can't see how we could develop a specification that ignores wcag
> requirements. You absolutely have to have multiple ways to access the pages
> of a publication, for example. In EPUB, the reading system facilitates
> seamless navigation from document to document through the spine (metadata
> about the order). There is also a required table of contents, and
> publications often have other forms of navigation, like indexes, access to
> static page break locations, search functionality through the reading
> system, etc. I'm fully expecting that we won't compromise anywhere, but
> details of the pitfalls you encountered would be helpful.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca
> <david100@sympatico.ca>]
> *Sent:* November 23, 2016 10:52 AM
> *To:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman,
> Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; George Kerscher <
> kerscher@montana.com>; Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh
> Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: DPUB Set of Web Pages
>
>
>
> Hi Mike
>
>
>
> >was developed the consensus opinion was that applying 2.4.1, 2.4.5,
> 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 to documents using the “set of documents” definition did
> not capture the key accessibility needs.
>
>
>
> Can you explain this further? I was an active member of the WCAG2ICT TF
> with you on all of those calls for a year.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:32 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Matt
>
>
>
> I think including a epub example in a set of web pages wouldn't preclude a
> more specific definition of epub at a later time, or even in a later
> version of WCAG ... on the other hand, maybe we could introduce a new term
> in 2.1 if we have it very soon.
>
>
>
> It just seems to me that "a set of web pages" and inherent in that the
> "web page definition" of the base URL and associated assets, is a perfect
> short term definition that would accomplish what George mentioned about
> working epub into the web page framework so that the WCAG Success Criteria
> can explicitly apply to epub.
>
>
>
> Although just the fact that they sit at a URL already allows WCAG Success
> Criteria to apply to epub, and WCAG2ICT applies when its offline.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, David, this is a good start. I'd just suggest that we keep any
> definition of a web publication agnostic to specific formats.
>
>
>
> As Tzviya mentioned on the call, the DPUB group will be taking up the
> issues from yesterday on their next call, so we'll have more to say about
> example wording and metadata after we can involve the full group.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* November 22, 2016 3:26 PM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman,
> Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; George Kerscher <
> kerscher@montana.com>; markus.gylling@idpf.org; matt.garrish@bell.net;
> Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh Saxena <
> Avneesh.s@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* DPUB Set of Web Pages
>
>
>
> Note: DPUB members, this is my personal opinion, not speaking for WG
>
>
>
> Today we discussed ways that we could role a DPUB package into our
> definition of web page.
>
>
>
> DPUB packages have more than one URL, and as such cannot be considered
> under our current definition as a web page. However, we have a useful
> definition in WCAG which lends itself ideally to a DPUB document. That is a
> "Set of Web Pages"
>
>
>
> *set of Web pages*
>
> collection of Web pages <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef> that
> share a common purpose and that are created by the same author, group or
> organization
>
> *Note: *Different language versions would be considered different sets of
> Web pages.
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
>
>
>
> We could add something like this to the definition
>
>
>
> "Example: An epub publication has a table of contents and 25 separate URLs
> representing each chapter of a digital book."
>
>
>
> If the DPUB team has Success Criteria they would like to propose for WCAG,
> for DEC 1st, I suggest they submit them using this definition. For
> instance, if they want ways to link from a TOC to another chapter of the
> document and back, they could propose something like:
>
>
>
>        "Every link from a Table of Contents in a set of web pages has a
> corresponding link back to the Table of Contents"
>
>
>
> Of course this SC  is just off the top of my head but it gives an idea of
> how this type of SC could be written with this language.
>
>
>
> =============
>
> Also we discussed meta data as a means of reporting conformance. WCAG 2
> has a discussion of meta data in Appendix C which may be useful.
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>