W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > September 2015

RE: Best citation format for accessibility

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:00:08 +0000
To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0601MB14223B0BFD59D6A7E6239668DF450@CY1PR0601MB1422.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Just pointing out that Tzviya is talking (at least partly) about something different than I was talking about.

She is talking, in the context of Name/Date etc. ("Melville, 1851"), about how the citation is expressed in text, typically referencing a full citation provided in a bibliography or reference list (typically in a section at the end of the paper, in backmatter). She's exactly right, as usual. There are lots of different ways of doing that in-text citation, and many of those don't give you much to work with. But they aren't typically designed to take you to the cited thing, they are designed to take you to the citation of the cited thing.

I was talking about that full citation in the bibliography or reference list. Those are typically very richly tagged (at least _adequately_ tagged) to enable CrossRef resolution, which I think would provide useful semantics for accessibility. They work extremely well for citations of journal articles; less well but better all the time for citations to books, chapters, conference proceedings, standards, websites, etc.

--Bill Kasdorf

-----Original Message-----
From: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken [mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:33 AM
To: Robin Berjon; public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Best citation format for accessibility

Hi Robin,

Great to hear from you. 

There is a great lack of consensus on best practices for citation in general. Harvard vs AMA vs Vancouver, and that does not include the variety of HTML citations. They all include essentially the same information in a different sequence. 

I turn the question around to you. What is missing? Should citations be chunked elements that a user can tab through? If AT can pick up on existing ontologies we can do this now using resources like BIBO [1],  CITO [2], and others. (This might not be easy, but it's better than <span class="surname">)

One pain point I see is the Name Date method of citation, which refers the reader to the citation by use of the authors surname and year of publication. For example, a reference to Moby Dick would be (Melville, 1851). Multiple references to the same work would use the same reference. When digital, these references are usually links.  I think this method of linking violates WCAG unless one is really careful.

Should we loop in WAI?

[1] http://bibliontology.com/

[2] http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito 

Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead Wiley

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:41 AM
To: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Best citation format for accessibility


citations in scholarly publishing have a long history of at-time acrimonious disagreement over the exact format one should set them in.
There can be long arguments about the how and why of some specific detail, but these are all about visual presentation. I have yet to hear someone discuss the best format to use for the *content*, when in digital form, such that it is most accessible.

By applying some technology, we can reformat a citation for visual rendering. We can even make citation formatting follow readers'
preferences rather than publishers'. But when doing so the HTML-level encoding of the citations should be optimised for semantic, non-visual access.

So my question is: has anyone given thought to what the best order of content and best markup practices would be for optimally accessible citations?


Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2015 16:00:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:12 UTC