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 16:28:48 +0000
To: Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com>
CC: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "W3C Digital Publishing IG" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0601MB14222DAB03FFB9AE03363C75DF450@CY1PR0601MB1422.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
You make a valid point; the "just read it and figure it out" approach is certainly one strategy, though I still think being able to distinguish the semantic components of a citation would be useful (there are typographic cues for a sighted user-quotation marks, italics, bold journal abbreviation, etc.). So I presume you're suggesting, that, for accessibility purposes, it would be sufficient for a screen reader to simply know that something is a citation and then be able to "read" it to the user? In that case I still think they need to know how to obtain the cited resource, so at least the link has to be accessible in itself.

From: Olaf Drümmer [mailto:olaf@druemmer.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:20 PM
To: Bill Kasdorf
Cc: Olaf Drümmer; Bill McCoy; Robin Berjon; W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: Re: Best citation format for accessibility

On 22 Sep 2015, at 17:50, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>> wrote:

My point is that from an accessibility point of view, the components of a citation are generally already known; the challenge is getting them from JATS to HTML.

Why would one care from an accessibility point of view?

A sighted user looking at a print version (a electronic version rendered on some screen) of a citation doesn't have that granular information provided as part of the visual rendering.

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2015 16:29:18 UTC

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