W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web Publication?"

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:44:52 +0100
Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D5A4C47F-8AA6-4628-96FF-B2A88D5C1067@w3.org>
To: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>

> On 30 Jan 2017, at 19:30, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> It looks that my q+ command could not go through in today’s call.

Sorry about that...

> Therefore I will like to add comments to the thread.
> 
> Firstly it would be important to get some clarification on, is term “Accessibility” equivalent to “WCAG”?
> If it is not equivalent, and the term “accessibility” is more flexible then it is easier to place it as a “must”.
> 
> I heard argument of Ivan, that accessibility is “strong should” and not a “must” in W3C. I completely understand it.
> For publications accessibility we have 2 objectives.
> 1. Accessibility should be a stronger force in publications than other web technologies because education in many countries emphasize accessibility. It was well stated by Luc, and was also recognized during use case development.
> 2. The new transformation of EPUB that comes from W3C WG should have accessibility embedded in it from its birth. We should not repeat the history of EPUB, where accessibility became a high priority only in the version 3.
> 
> I would suggest 2 actions for the charter:
> 1. If the term “accessibility” is more flexible than “WCAG” then we should state that web publication must be accessible to the extent possible.
> 2. We should increase the emphasis on our work with WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 3. The objective of our work is to ensure that WCAG is applicable to web publication's.
> 

On #1. I believe the proposal on the call yesterday (I have not yet cleaned up the minutes, sorry) was that the technologies used for WP and derivatives MUST provide means to make the content accessible. (Which, I believe, is a statement generally true for all W3C technologies.) I am not sure whether, in the charter or the WP draft, we should go beyond that, ie, to specify whether this means WCAG or beyond, that statement seems to cover what we need. Note also that the charter (not the WP draft) already includes a text referring to horizontal reviews (that all W3C WG-s have to go through) which include a review on accessibility, whose goal is precisely to check the technologies put forward in this sense.

On #2. some text on our contribution has already been added to the charter; however, as George emphasized, the publishing requirements on a11y have now been added as 'in scope' for the the further work on WCAG. In other words, the publishing WG will have to contribute to that work (and that is in the charter) but the focus is not in our Working Group.

Cheers

Ivan


> With regards
> Avneesh
> From: Leonard Rosenthol <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 00:10
> To: George Kerscher <mailto:kerscher@montana.com> ; 'DPUB mailing list' <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web Publication?"
> 
> George, I completely agree with you about the need (or, as you said, better – right!) for accessible documents.  And I do want to make sure that we take every step possible to make it as easy as possible for authors to produce accessible WPs – and identify them as such.   I also expect that for profiles of WP focused on “publications that are fit for  public consumption and sale”, the mandating of accessibility (such as is done today with EPUB) is almost a given.
> 
> But there are also use cases for WP’s where accessibility need not be mandated (or, oddly enough, even necessary).  And WP itself – as the “baseline” for the various profiles described in the PWP document (and the WG draft charter) – needs to be flexible enough to address both those cases (and more).
> 
> Leonard
> 
> From: "kerscher@montana.com <mailto:kerscher@montana.com>" <kerscher@montana.com <mailto:kerscher@montana.com>>
> Date: Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 12:10 PM
> To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>, 'DPUB mailing list' <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
> Subject: RE: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web Publication?"
> 
> Dear Leonard,
> Where you write:
> Here’s the one where George, Charles and others are going to be scream – but I believe it is an extremely important point – you can’t mandate accessibility in a WP (ie. “A Web Publication must be accessible to the broadest possible range of readers”). We should make it a strong recommendation (a “should” vs. a “shall” in ISO terminology) and do all we can to promote this direction.  However, given our goals to support not only curated publications but also ad-hoc publications, it is not reasonable to expect them all to be accessible.  Just as not every page on the web is accessible, web publications need not be either.
> 
> You are correct about me objecting. It is said that, “Silence is violence.” And I am not going to be silent on this
> 
> Access to information is a civil right in many nations  and the “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) treaty supports this, and as I have said, it is a human right.
> 
> I am a very practical guy and understand that it is extremely difficult to make all materials accessible to all people. In EPUB 3.1, we have theEPUB Accessibility Conformance and Discovery specification, which identifies a baseline for accessibility. Also, in the WCAG 2.1 developments that are kicking off, digital publishing is in scope.
> 
> So, I think this will require significant discussion, but I feel that metadata will be very important in the identification of publications that are fit for  public consumption and sale.
> 
> Best
> George
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   <>
> From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>]
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 9:16 AM
> To: DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>) <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
> Subject: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web Publication?"
> Importance: High
> 
> While working on the PWP document today, I can into a few things that I’d like to raise for discussion (either via email or phone tomorrow, or both).
> 
> Let’s start right up front with the definition of a Web Publication J.   It currently reads “A Web Publication (WP) is a bounded collection of resources, envisioned and created as a whole”.  I would like to review the second half of that sentence – about the envisioned and created as a whole.  In the world of documents, the most popular feature of processing applications is the ability to combine parts of other documents together to create a new one.  In that use case, the resources weren’t “envisioned and created as a whole”.  You could say that the author/publisher envisioned that collection and intentionally collated those resources together – but that’s different from what is here.  I would also put forth that the application of annotations to a WP can create a new WP that also was not “envisioned and created as a whole”.
> 
> 
> There is a requirement that “The package must include the unique identifier of the manifestation—a Web Publication’s origin is essential information if a PWP becomes portable”.  Two paragraphs later it goes into further detail about the origin inclusion and even mentions trust. Unfortunately, that requirement seems to imply some potential implementation considerations that the WebPackaging work is proving to not be feasible – see https://github.com/dimich-g/webpackage/issues/7 <https://github.com/dimich-g/webpackage/issues/7>.  I would like to remove the second half of that sentence (about the origin) and also remove the bit about trust from the latest paragraph.  Let’s just leave it open that we want a unique identifier, but that’s it, and that the origin is not necessarily related to the identifier.
> 
> 
> Here’s the one where George, Charles and others are going to be scream – but I believe it is an extremely important point – you can’t mandate accessibility in a WP (ie. “A Web Publication must be accessible to the broadest possible range of readers”). We should make it a strong recommendation (a “should” vs. a “shall” in ISO terminology) and do all we can to promote this direction.  However, given our goals to support not only curated publications but also ad-hoc publications, it is not reasonable to expect them all to be accessible.  Just as not every page on the web is accessible, web publications need not be either.
> 
> 
> Another area that we cannot mandate – but should make a strong recommendation – is that “A Web Publication must be available and functional while the user is offline”. An author may produce a publication that is only designed to be used online – for example, one that connects to an online system. We don’t wish to prevent the development of such a publication.
> 
> 
> Finally, I think we say too much about the use of the manifest.  It says “We also introduce the abstract concept of a manifest, which serves to carry information about the constituent resources of the publication, their sequence, and presentation”.  I think we should only say that it carries the resources and not mention sequence and presentation. This is consistent with our statement, earlier in the same section, about how we aren’t going to define “manifest” (and leave it in the generic FRBR sense).
> 
> 
> Leonard


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





Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2017 05:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:37 UTC