Re: draft text for charter

Avneesh, all,

Thank you. Comments, questions below


> On 13 Feb 2017, at 06:03, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much.
> I have used George's draft as base, incorporated simplification of Debra and did minor adaptations.
> The objectives are:
> 1. To ensure that accessibility normative requirements are delivered along with Digital publishing specifications.
> 2. To Generalize the accessibility requirements specific to digital publishing in other W3C technologies over the course of time.
> 
> The text now reads as follows. Please feel free to improve it further.
> 
> The Digital Publishing Working Group will incorporate accessibility considerations into the Working Group's deliverables. All recommendation-track deliverables will contain one or more options to meet normative accessibility requirements. General W3C accessibility requirements such as WCAG will be integrated as a matter of course; the extended requirements will be identified as conformance requirements in the Digital Publishing Working Group's normative specifications.
> 

I am not sure it is worth to say "All recommendations-track deliverables" instead of "All deliverables". At this moment, we only have rec-track deliverables; but if we publish notes on topic or another, that may be part of the pledge as well.

On the other hand… committing to "all" deliverables like that may not be absolutely precise and may be seen as too restrictive. If, for example, we indeed take up (this is pending!) JavaScript APIs as described in the charter draft, I am not sure accessibility requirements will apply there. Maybe use in the text something like 'when applicable', or 'if it becomes necessary' or something like that?

A final thing: during our latest call somebody raised the issue of what the fate of the W3C accessibility note, as well as the EPUB accessibility document will be. Your text may not cover that. To take an example, the DPUB WG may not address pagination directly, because that may be, after all, in the realm of the CSS WG + Houdini, therefore none of our recommendation will cover the pagination-related a11y issues. I think one alternative was that we would discuss with the WCAG WG on whether the DPUB WG would publish, on rec-track, a separate WCAG-like document; what happened to that idea?

> The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with the appropriate W3C groups (WAI, WCAG, ARIA etc.) to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of our recommendation-track deliverables in to generalized technology. One or more pipeline of the requirements will be maintained to manage diverse turnaround times of the W3C groups.

That is fine as a separate text (although, to be precise, there is no such group as 'WAI'). But there has to be a mention in the liaison section for each of these groups. But that is a minor thing.

I hope this helps

Ivan


> .
> 
> With regards
> Avneesh
> -----Original Message----- From: George Kerscher
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 01:04
> To: 'Avneesh Singh' ; 'Ivan Herman' ; deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
> Cc: public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
> Subject: RE: draft text for charter
> 
> This is a little shorter:
> The Digital Publishing Working Group will incorporate
> accessibility considerations into the Working Group's deliverables. All
> recommendation-track deliverables will contain one or more options to meet
> normative accessibility requirements. General W3C accessibility requirements
> such as WCAG will be integrated as a matter of course; any extended
> requirements will be identified as conformance requirements in the Digital
> Publishing Working Group's normative specifications.
> 
> The Digital Publishing Working Group will explore communication mechanisms
> with appropriate W3C groups  to integrate requirements created as part of
> our recommendation-track deliverables in to generalized technology.
> 
> Best
> George
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avneesh Singh [mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:01 AM
> To: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>; 'Ivan Herman' <ivan@w3.org>;
> deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
> Cc: public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
> Subject: Re: draft text for charter
> 
> The text is conceptually good. The first para is about identifying
> accessibility requirements and developing specs, and second paragraph talks
> about creating pipeline for feeding it in WCAG ARIA etc. It is aligned to
> our discussions.
> Can the text be a little simplified?
> 
> With regards
> Avneesh
> -----Original Message----- From: George Kerscher
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 22:31
> To: 'Ivan Herman' ; deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
> Cc: public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
> Subject: RE: draft text for charter
> 
> Dear Sub-group,
> How about:
> 
> The Digital Publishing Working Group will focus on incorporating
> accessibility considerations into the Working Group's deliverables. All
> recommendation-track deliverables will contain one or more options to meet
> normative accessibility requirements. General W3C accessibility requirements
> such as WCAG will be integrated as a matter of course; any extended
> requirements will be delineated as conformance requirements in the Digital
> Publishing Working Group's normative specifications.
> 
> The Digital Publishing Working Group will arrange pipelines with appropriate
> W3C groups  in order to create a mechanism for the delivery of accessibility
> requirements created as part of our recommendation-track deliverables into
> the appropriate recommendations for more generalized technology.
> 
> Best
> George
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 8:50 AM
> To: deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
> Cc: public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
> Subject: Re: draft text for charter
> 
> Deborah,
> 
> thanks for taking the first shoot at this!
> 
> not reacting to the content just the form: please consider to be as terse as
> possible. The charter should not be too long and should be balanced among
> the various requirements. At first glance what you write may simply be too
> long.
> 
> In particular, the charter should not include operative issues like the
> creation of sub-groups. This is an organizational matter, and it is up to
> tge WG how, operationally, it should achieve its chartered goals...
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ivan
> 
> ---
> Ivan Herman
> Tel:+31 641044153
> http://www.ivan-herman.net
> 
> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 18:29, deborah.kaplan@suberic.net wrote:
>> 
>> all right, have at it, folks. Edit away.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Digital Publishing Working Group will include an Accessibility
> subgroup [task force?] responsible for guaranteeing that accessibility
> considerations are incorporated into all of the Working Group's
> deliverables. All recommendation-track deliverables will contain normative
> accessibility requirements. General W3C accessibility requirements such as
> WCAG will be integrated as a matter of course; any extended requirements
> will delineated as conformance requirements in the Digital Publishing
> Working Group's normative specifications.
>> 
>> The Digital Publishing Working Group will have prearranged pipelines with
> all appropriate W3C groups (delineated below in the "Coordination" section)
> in order to create a pipeline from the accessibility requirements created as
> part of our recommendation-track deliverables into the appropriate
> recommendations for more generalized technology, whether into the
> generalized recommendation, or into a subset recommendation such as a
> WAI-ARIA module.
>> 
>> -Deborah
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


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