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

Re: [DPUB][A11Y] Agenda 082616

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:05:01 +0000
To: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>, "public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org" <public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org>
CC: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8E16D97A-5AE8-45E0-9332-DDF8D921803A@adobe.com>
Some comments on Avneesh and George’s positions below.

@Avneesh – there is nothing inherent in PWP that assumes static (unchanging) content.  In fact, we have some use cases that specifically call out the ability for a PWP to be updated after publication by both/either the original author/publisher or by the reader/consumer themselves.   Accessibility considerations (not just braille) will need to take post-publication updates into account.

@George – (if things go as planned), then PWP’s of the future will be everything from a holiday card to a memo to presentations, oh, and maybe the occasional professional publication.  The VAST majority of them will NOT be professionally authored and will most likely be distributed in an ad-hoc manner.  In that regard they are much closer (identical?) to web sites – where only those sites that are used in areas impacted by regulation need to comply


Leonard

From: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 3:52 PM
To: "public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org" <public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org>
Cc: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: [DPUB][A11Y] Agenda 082616
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:52:51 +0000

Hello everyone,

Based on the feedback from our DPUB meeting on Monday here is the agenda for tomorrows meeting.

[1] Agenda
[2] Date/Time
[3] WebEx Call In
[4] IRC Channel


Regards Deborah and Charles

[1] Agenda

Write up an initial section that discusses the fact that Ivan raised here

Ivan: "I had the impression that what deborah said could be formulated noncontroversial. There's no reason to make a comparison to the web. What I heard about the stability of the publication which requires accessibility. The industry has faced legal action. Just stating that accessibility is important. I think it's possible to describe in a positive manor - as an introduction to section 8."

What makes braille within a PWP differnet from braille on the web in general?”  Here were the comments form Avneesh and George
Avneesh: "What Ivan says ties up to some technical reasons. The main difference between the web VS epub - dynamic VS static. When we talk about the PWP - the portability, the static documents, the preformatted braille. If there is something in the shape of tree, the braille should tie up. Braille is a type of publication."
George: "The PWP are normally products being sold. Websites that you go to are usually not. The proposed rule with the ADA is that the accessibility requirements for the web & published documents will get closer. We're getting closer to what will be required in the future."


Link to PWP Use cases http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#accessibility

Editable version https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/blob/gh-pages/index.html


[2]  Friday August 19 at 10AM PDT / 1PM EDT / 17:00 UTC

[3] https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me61494d75b248018777b1bbf0b87dd3b

Meeting number: 642 567 899
Dial in: +1-617-324-0000
Password: (Ask Charles, Tzviya, or Deborah)

[4] DPUB IRC Channel
irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org>


Thanks
EOM

Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org>
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre
Phone: 650-600-3301


Received on Thursday, 25 August 2016 20:05:36 UTC

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