- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:03:42 -0500
- To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
- Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDY9_u-8==-RnnsL13iaGEvJ4W7sxZ_=tyZb-h_YBe888A@mail.gmail.com>
I've started the agree upon wording for the Accessibility Metadata Success Criteria in Issue #82 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/82 It would be a AAA requirement with SC language such as this. =Accessibility Metadata= Accessibility Metadata is provided which describes the accessibility characteristics of the content using an openly published vocabulary. At a minimum this is a machine readable description either on the page or referenced from the set of pages to which it applies. A human readable summary may also be provided. 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 Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote: > Hi Tzviya, > > To me, the first priority for having a success criterion about metadata is > to ensure it fits with the conformance claim section in WCAG 2.0 right now. > If the through metadata you can't express what WCAG itself recommends doing > with a conformance claim, then that seems too limited to me. > > For reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims > > Further more, we can't talk about conformance of sites. WCAG conformance > can only be claimed at a page level. At most a claim can be made that all > pages on a website are conforming. Practically, for any website larger then > a few pages such a claim is hard to make. > > A second part to consider is how the WCAG Evaluation Methodology fits into > this. It does actually have tools to report on the accessibility of > websites as a whole (these are not conformance claims though). You can find > WCAG-EM Here: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/ > > Lastly, regarding Accessibility Conformance Testing Taskforce (ACT). It is > currently hard to speculate exactly what the outcome of this will look > like, but there are a few things we can reasonably assume today. A critical > component to why ACT is happening is that we want to be explicit about how > accessibility results are gathered. For the same reason you mention > indicating who certified something. Not all WCAG claims are equal. ACT > means to make the test procedures used for WCAG testing explicit. > > > I hope this sets a few things up for the discussion soon. I think there is > a whole lot of things to work through if we want to be able to get a > success criterion in, but I'm very excited to see if we can make this work! > > Regards > > Wilco > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken < > tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> >> >> The properties that we have been working on are available in two places. >> There are some terms were written a few years ago (and derive from the IMS >> Global Access for All Project). These are linked to from >> https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature. The wiki details information at >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility. >> >> >> >> The newer, pending terms are available at: >> >> http://pending.schema.org/. >> >> http://pending.schema.org/accessMode >> >> http://pending.schema.org/accessModeSufficient >> >> http://pending.schema.org/accessibilitySummary >> >> >> >> If I’m understanding your proposal correctly, you would like to see a new >> property called AccessibilityConformance, with predefined values that align >> with WCAG levels. That sounds like a great idea, but we would have to go >> through the schema.org extensions process [1]. That is how we reached >> all of the other properties. We have also talked about including >> information about conformance and/or certification. We thought it would be >> helpful to include not just what the site conforms to but who certifies >> that the site is conformant. There are lots of sites that claim to be WCAG >> AA-compliant, but that is a very broad statement. >> >> >> >> So, if there is language on the wiki that you would like to edit so that >> we reflect more about WCAG, we can do that. We cannot add a property at >> this stage. We are happy to work on adding more accessibility properties in >> the future. The schema.org CG seemed really interested in growing this, >> not just from a WCAG perspective but also expanding scope to include >> information such as whether physical locations include wheelchair ramps. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tzviya >> >> >> >> [1] https://schema.org/docs/extension.html >> >> >> >> *Tzviya Siegman* >> >> Information Standards Lead >> >> Wiley >> >> 201-748-6884 <(201)%20748-6884> >> >> tsiegman@wiley.com >> >> >> >> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:52 PM >> *To:* Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken >> *Cc:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; Matt Garrish; George Kerscher; Wilco >> Fiers; WCAG; Charles LaPierre; Avneesh Singh >> *Subject:* 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 <(613)%20235-4902> >> >> 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> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > *Wilco Fiers* > Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG >
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: deque_logo_180p.gif
Received on Monday, 5 December 2016 20:04:37 UTC