FW: Initial Comments on Accessibility Standards Recommendation for Updates (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:11:41 +0000
From: Kathy Alley <kalley@bluefirereader.com>
To: Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>
Subject: FW: Initial Comments on Accessibility Standards Recommendation for
     Updates


Thank you!





From: Kathy Alley
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 2:19 PM
To: 'public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org' <public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org>
Subject: Initial Comments on Accessibility Standards Recommendation for Updates



http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/



Although I have not seen the MARU doc, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the current document would not benefit from being
organized by disability type; it simply is not long enough, with enough recommendations, to support the topics. And there are, of course,
the cross-overs.



I would instead suggest that the recommendations be ordered first by action needed and action not needed (as they are now), then by type
of feature:



ACTION REQUIRED
Pagination

Layout

    Drop Cap

    Deep Nested Headings

    Semantic List Head

Audio

    PLS

User Customizable Content

    Skippability

    Escapability



ACTION NOT REQUIRED
Layout's Influence On Comprehension
Annotations
Notes (Footnotes, Asides, Author Notes, etc.)
Positional Location of Text (to indicate different speakers)



The top, where George will add a line or two to identify the audience, and the intro, purpose and guidelines make sense as they are.



The Appendix is somewhat disjointed; referring to WCAG techniques, then Diagrammer, then Assessments. Assessments combined with Future
Work would be a really nice Next Steps close. I would suggest that only WCAG Techniques really belongs in an Appendix.



Question: Are we promoting Diagrammer? It looks very, very cool. I have our JS/iOS Dev looking at it now, to see if iOS supports it. It’s
open source, so if screen readers are supporting it, we could recommend highly. But I could be wrong. I’m new.



If we are (even subtly) promoting Diagrammer, I would add it right after the Action Not Required Section under something like Recommended
Specification Additions, or something like that. The worst they could do is say no.



I would be happy to give the doc an edit after George (and anyone else) is done; it’s very clean, but I saw a couple areas which need
smoothing. If ok, would someone give me permissions to edit?



Hope this first attempt at helping is help. If not, you can always fire me. J



Happy Friday!



Kathy



Kathy Alley

Cloudshelf Product Manager

Bluefire Productions

206.595.6262