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

[DPUB][A11Y] Agenda 082616

From: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:56:05 -0600
To: "'Leonard Rosenthol'" <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "'Charles LaPierre'" <charlesl@benetech.org>, <public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org>
Cc: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00b601d1ffba$bcc1ea40$3645bec0$@montana.com>
Dear Accessibility folks,
OMG, Leonard points out that we have not made it clear that PWP needs to be accessible to persons with disabilities. So, I suggest that we introduce this requirement.
Entry: PWP need to be accessible to persons with disabilities when they are intended for use in schools, higher education, government, libraries or for public sale or distribution. The metadata associated with the accessibility and the accessibility hazards must be included.
Example 1: A university professor is developing a course and the professor knows that he is required to use accessible digital materials. The professor uses the search capabilities of available publications to determine which titles are accessible and therefore suitable for his use.
Example 2: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) wants to produce a PWP explaining the precautions needed in a public epidemic. Persons with disabilities need this same information and the publication is produced accessibility with the appropriate metadata.
Talk to you in five minutes.
From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:41 PM
To: George Kerscher; 'Charles LaPierre'; public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Cc: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: [DPUB][A11Y] Agenda 082616
One minor set of changes:
USE Case: Annotations associated with a PWP must be ABLE TO BE accessible with AT
When annotations are distributed and associated with a PWP, the content of the annotation must be ABLE TO BE compatible with Assistive Technology.
Since a PWP is not required to be accessible, there is no requirement that their annotations be so.  However, we absolutely want to ensure that when required, there are no roadblocks to making them accessible.
From: "kerscher@montana.com" <kerscher@montana.com>
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 6:03 PM
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>
Subject: RE: [DPUB][A11Y] Agenda 082616
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 6:04 PM
Recall that I brought this up:
George: "Does accessibility group need to add anything to the use-case groups for annotations?" 
Markus: "I'd need to check to see if the annotations group has existing use-cases, if so we just reference that." 
George: "I think they're talking about data transfer, but no statements about the presentation of the information - such as images, hand-writing, text,
so it seems to be possible - a use case that would channel images to text would be good, unless it's already there." ... "i'll bring it up with our accessibility
group and make sure we have it covered."
USE Case: Annotations associated with a PWP must be accessible with AT
When annotations are distributed and associated with a PWP, the content of the annotation must be compatible with Assistive Technology.
Use case example 1: A teacher annotates a PWP used in the classroom with specific text items the students should focus upon. Once distributed to the students and associated with the PWP, all students must be able to read the annotations.
Use case example 2: A person wants to annotate in the margin of a PWP and share it with others. A digital pen is used for the annotation. The hand writing is captured as an image, and the software askes the writer to confirm the conversion to text is accurate.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:52 PM
To: public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Cc: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: [DPUB][A11Y] Agenda 082616
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

Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre
Phone: 650-600-3301
Received on Friday, 26 August 2016 16:57:05 UTC

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