W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Reworked the section on 'horizontals'

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:39:54 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: David Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Deborah Kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <93B0F7A4-E83E-430A-A50C-3669730B9EB2@adobe.com>
MUCH better – thanks for understanding where I was coming from and finding a solution that resolves my concerns.

Leonard

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:07 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: David Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Deborah Kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Reworked the section on 'horizontals'

Leonard,

this is not an answer to this particular mail, but rather to the whole thread.

I perfectly understand your original concerns, and I agree that the text did not make the differentiation between technology and authors' requirement very clear (in fact, it mixed it up). That being said, I am not sure your line of changes were the right one; they all aligned by what the authors can or should do but, as the thread that followed shows, this could be misunderstood.

So I did a more radical re-edit of the full section. I have tried to unify the intro text and the more detailed descriptions of the horizontal alongside of what the _publication_ should be like, without mentioning the author and the technology, and I created a separate paragraph after the explanation that tries to make it clear how this translated into practice (ie, that these translate into technical requirements on OWP and PWP). I have also made it clear that what the author does or doesn't do is not something we deal with in this document. Please, forget about the previous mention, and see if the new version works!

As for your second comment on the difference between the 2nd and 3rd examples: indeed, there were overlaps, but the texbook example also addressed privacy issues that were not really relevant for the legal publication case. I have reformulated the third example to put the privacy issue to the fore, although I think the accessibility requirement is still worth mentioning. Is that o.k.?

Thanks

Ivan


On 16 Aug 2016, at 22:47, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:

> I would argue that an author has a moral (and often legal) obligation to create accessible content,
>and the file format and rendering system should be designed to maximize accessibility
>
And I agree with you 100%, Dave!


> Yes, it's possible to create inaccessible content in HTML and in EPUB.
>But we should design PWP so making accessible content is easy and natural
>
No argument there either on either point.


> I also think it's within the scope of PWP to investigate ways of ensuring all (or most) content is accessible.
>
And again, I agree with that as well.


But yes, I am absolutely trying to make clear that the final choice of whether to make THEIR content accessible (or secure or interactive or responsive or …) is up to the AUTHOR of that content.  The technologies we are using from the OWP provide that author with a rich set of tools to make the content accessible (secure, interactive, responsive, etc.) – but they need not use those tools if their content doesn’t need it.

Leonard

From: David Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com<mailto:dauwhe@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 4:27 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>, Deborah Kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net<mailto:deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Reworked the section on 'horizontals'

On Aug 16, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:




For example (and I know this will be contentious), while a PWP _CAN_ be made accessible through the use of the OWP technologies – an author doesn’t have to do that if they don’t wish to do so.  And the current text implies that every PWP would be…

I don't think I fully understand this statement. I would argue that an author has a moral (and often legal) obligation to create accessible content, and the file format and rendering system should be designed to maximize accessibility. Yes, it's possible to create inaccessible content in HTML and in EPUB. But we should design PWP so making accessible content is easy and natural, and making inaccessible content is difficult. I also think it's within the scope of PWP to investigate ways of ensuring all (or most) content is accessible.

To put it another way, are you proposing a use case for making content inaccessible? Your suggested edits change accessibility and privacy "musts" to "shoulds", as well as shifting the obligation from the underlying technologies to the author.

Dave



----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704



Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 13:40:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:30 UTC