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

On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 11:40 +0000, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> I am perfectly fine with that wording, because it’s a should and not
> a must.  It’s the use of must that I am arguing against, since in a
> standard, that is a mandated requirement.  Should is a strong
> recommendation, and I agree, that we want to give that type of
> recommendation.
>
> So if you are fine with the wording “WP/PWP should be accessible to
> the extent possible, and should conform to WCAG” – so am I.

The spec itself will certainly conform to the content authoring
guidelines or we won't publish it. But I think what you mean is that it
MUST be possible to create WP/PWP instances that conform to WCAG, and
that the specification must designed in ways to facilitate and
encourage this.

Avneesh:
One way is to allow specs to meet WCAG. I think that this is mandatory.
More important is to design the specs in a way that it becomes nearly 
impossible to produce inaccessible content. This is the state that we will 
like to achieve.

With regards
Avneesh

>
> Leonard
>
> From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:25 AM
> To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "kerscher@montana.com" <k
> erscher@montana.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> “WP/PWPs can be made accessible but need not be so”
> Hi Leonard, this is exactly the statement that is troubling me.
> Our approach is: WP/PWP should be accessible to the extent possible,
> and should conform to WCAG. i.e. must for accessibility in general
> and should for WCAG conformance.
> This means that it is not mandatory to conform to WCAG, but
> accessibility is a requirement.
>
> This will be in line with the world wide efforts for reinforcing
> accessibility in publication's, while giving adequate flexibility to
> new developments that may not conform to WCAG at early stage.
>
> With regards
> Avneesh
> From: Leonard Rosenthol<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 00:45
> To: Avneesh Singh<mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> ; George
> Kerscher<mailto:kerscher@montana.com> ; 'DPUB mailing list'<mailto:pu
> blic-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> Avneesh – as I mentioned on the call today, do not conflate the work
> on Web Publications (and Portable Web Publications) with that of the
> evolution of EPUB.  These are two separate work items clearly spelled
> out as such in the DRAFT Charter.
>
> I would expect that the evolution of EPUB does mandate accessibility
> just as it does today.  I don’t believe anyone has stated otherwise.
> What I am have pushing back on is that WP/PWPs can be made accessible
> but need not be so.
>
> Leonard
>
> From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM
> To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "kerscher@montana.com" <k
> erscher@montana.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> It looks that my q+ command could not go through in today’s call.
> 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.
>
> 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" <kerscher@montana.com>
> Date: Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 12:10 PM
> To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, 'DPUB mailing list' <publ
> ic-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]
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 9:16 AM
> To: DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org) <public-digipub-ig@w
> 3.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
> ☺.   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/webpacka
> ge/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

Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2017 14:08:22 UTC