- From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:35:16 +0530
- To: "Charles LaPierre" <charlesl@benetech.org>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "George Kerscher" <kerscher@montana.com>, "Deborah Kaplan" <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>, <public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CDE6085592C14973886BF63FE7508ADD@AvneeshHP840>
I have gone through the scope statement as well as the Accessibility Guidelines WG coordination section.
All look fine to me.
The other statement about EPUB 4 has greatly reduced the chance of shedding off the separate text for accessibility.
George, we know that you are busy in Baltimore conference today. In case you can also review it, it would be good.
With regards
Avneesh
From: Avneesh Singh
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 22:06
To: Charles LaPierre ; Ivan Herman
Cc: George Kerscher ; Deborah Kaplan ; public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft text for charter: copying text in email
For convenience, I am copying the scope from the charter here. It will help in quick review.
It would be good to close this issue as soon as possible.
2. Scope
For the purpose of this document, A Web Publication (WP) is a collection of one or more constituent resources, organized together in a uniquely identifiable grouping that may be presented using standard Open Web Platform technologies. A Web Publication is not just a collection of links—the act of publishing involves obtaining resources and organizing them into a publication, which must be “manifested” by having files on a Web server. Thus the publisher provides an origin for the WP, and a URL that can uniquely identify that manifestation. A Web Publication must provide a number of features whose detailed specification is in the scope of this Working Group. While some of the detailed requirements have already been documented elsewhere, the most important and high level characteristics, that must be translated into specifications are:
• A Web Publication may be portable, and be hosted at some other origin. However, it must preserve information about its original origin and identity, so that references to a portable copy can be reconciled with the original publication, and so that the other origin can make informed choices about how much trust to grant to the publication.
• A Web Publication may be packaged by having all its constituent resources combined into a single file. The package must include the unique identifier of the manifestation—a Web Publication’s origin is essential information if it is to becomes portable. The act of packaging must be reversible; one must be able to recover the original structure and organization.
• It must be possible to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs and capabilities.
• A Web Publication must be available and functional while the user is offline. A user should, as much as possible, have a seamless experience of interacting with a Web Publication regardless of their network connection. We make no distinction between online and offline when defining Web Publications.
• A Web Publication, having an identity and nature beyond its constituent resources, will have metadata that describes the publication as a whole. We also introduce the abstract concept of a manifest, which serves to carry information about the constituent resources of the publication. The metadata and manifest will also incorporate information about the sequence and presentation of the content.
•A Web Publication must provide access to a range metainformation including (but not restricted to): ◦table of content, default or alternate reading order;
◦security and authentication data;
◦metadata like author(s), title, unique identification.
Recommendation-track deliverables will contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs and capabilities. This includes general WCAG and WAI requirements of the W3C as well as requirements for international readers using different scripts and document formats. Additional extended requirements will be identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more stringent accessibility requirements.
EPUB has become one of the fundamental technologies for the global publishing ecosystem (see the separate document, published by the W3C Publishing Business Group, for more details and backgrounds). It is the preferred format for a broad range of types of publications, not only for distribution but increasingly also for authoring and production workflows. As part of the work on Web Publications, described in this charter, it is also critical that a next generation of EPUB, currently referred to as EPUB 4, retain the specificity, portability, predictability, accessibility, and internationalization required by the publishing ecosystem while benefitting from the improved features and functionalities offered by Packaged Web Publications. EPUB 4 must not be in conflict with Web Publications; it must be a type of Web Publication that provides the predictability and interoperability that this ecosystem has come to rely on.
With regards
Avneesh
From: Charles LaPierre
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 19:13
To: Ivan Herman
Cc: Avneesh Singh ; George Kerscher ; Deborah Kaplan ; public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft text for charter
I agree with Ivan in light of the inclusion of i18N and the security additions that we should leave the paragraph about working groups below the bulleted list.
Thanks
EOM
Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre
Phone: 650-600-3301
On Mar 22, 2017, at 4:41 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
Avneesh & al,
Just to trace back history… the text was discussed on the 6th of March, see[1]. This is when the idea of putting some part of the text 'outside' of the bullet item was proposed, and then it was also agreed to make a pull request along those lines. Which I did in [2]. In the subsequent discussion I believe it was George that raised the issue of pushing back that separate paragraph into the bullet list, but the discussion died down and there was no real decision taken (in particular, Leonard, whose proposal it was to put it where it is now, did not say yay or nay). That is where we are.
However, let us push history aside and look what is there now. It is worthwhile to look at it again because things have changed slightly since in two ways.
- At the time of the discussion that separate paragraph was the only one outside the bullet list and it indeed looked a bit strange indeed. However, since yesterday, this is no more true; there is now a separate paragraph on the marketing arguments around EPUB4; with that, the extra paragraph does not look funny any more imho in the editorial sense.
- There was, in the mean time, a slight change in the aforementioned paragraph, induced by the review of Richard Ishida[3]. He asked to add I18N consideration into the (originally) A11y paragraph. I actually think that this change is good; indeed the introductory sentence
"Recommendation-track deliverables will contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs and capabilities."
certainly applies to internationalization in the same way as it applies to accessibility. And this is the way it should be, imho. (I would not be surprised, b.t.w., if the (upcoming) security/privacy review of the charter would ask us to add something about that as well.) After all, the important sentence in that paragraph is
"Additional extended requirements will be identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative specifications."
That statement _is_ true for A11Y but it _is_ also true for I18N and may be true for security/privacy. What we have there is a pledge to take those extra, publication-specific issues to a normative text if needed.
If the decision to put the paragraph 'back' into the bullet items, then we would have to open a similar bullet item for I18N, essentially repeating the same text. From a purely editorial point of view, I personally believe the current situation has turned out to be better, and is satisfactory.
My 2 cents…
Thanks
Ivan
[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/06-dpub-minutes.html#item01
[2] https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/pull/18
[3] https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/36
On 22 Mar 2017, at 05:04, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that we are not tied up to Thursday, for a call.
I can also do a call on Friday.
With regards
Avneesh
From: George Kerscher
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 06:28
To: 'Charles LaPierre' ; 'Avneesh Singh'
Cc: 'Ivan Herman' ; 'Deborah Kaplan' ; public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: RE: draft text for charter
I think we wanted it included in the bullited list. I too am presenting at a conference at NFB at athat time.
Best
George
From: Charles LaPierre [mailto:charlesl@benetech.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:43 PM
To: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>; Deborah Kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>; public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft text for charter
The last thing I recall is we all agreed that if it was absolutely necessary we could move the couple of sentences
Recommendation-track deliverables will contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs and capabilities. This includes general WCAG and WAI requirements of the W3C; additional extended requirements will be identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more stringent accessibility requirements.
after the bulleted list of requirements, but it made more sense where it was and that if it was moved below the bulleted list then in future revisions it might be removed altogether which we were worried about. So I believe we thought we should keep it where it was originally. At least that is my recollection.
If we do need a meeting, I can call in on Thursday at the regular time, if needed but would rather not as I would be missing part of the eBookCraft conference I am attending and will be speaking at an hour afterwards.
Thanks
EOM
Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre
Phone: 650-600-3301
On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Accessibility TF,
The last discussion on the topic of accessibility text on charter is in the following email.
I could not recall any explicit agreement of accessibility TF after that.
May I request all of you to go through the email and the changes.
If we can resolve on emails it is good, else we should schedule the call on Thursday to finalize it. The charter is moving towards completion so we should resolve it as soon as possible.
With regards
Avneesh
On 7 Mar 2017, at 11:22, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I am copying the scope staement from the latest commit of Ivan.
As per the text, it is looking fine to me. But I also have a concern that if one statement in scope will be out of bullet points like this, then some people will again start process of finding another place for it.
Thoughts welcome..
I think your fear is justified; put it another way, that paragraph, put separately, seems to be a bit out of context. I must admit I have a preference, personally, to have this paragraph among the bullet items instead (as originally planned).
That being said, I am afraid we are dangerously close to bike-shedding.
Ivan
2. Scope
For the purpose of this document, A Web Publication (WP) is a collection of one or more constituent resources, organized together in a uniquely identifiable grouping that may be presented using standard Open Web Platform technologies. A Web Publication is not just a collection of links—the act of publishing involves obtaining resources and organizing them into a publication, which must be “manifested” by having files on a Web server. Thus the publisher provides an origin for the WP, and a URL that can uniquely identify that manifestation. A Web Publication must provide a number of features whose detailed specification is in the scope of this Working Group. While some of the detailed requirements have already been documented elsewhere, the most important and high level characteristics, that must be translated into specifications are:
• A Web Publication may be portable, and be hosted at some other origin. However, it must preserve information about its original origin and identity, so that references to a portable copy can be reconciled with the original publication, and so that the other origin can make informed choices about how much trust to grant to the publication.
• A Web Publication may be packaged by having all its constituent resources combined into a single file. The package must include the unique identifier of the manifestation—a Web Publication’s origin is essential information if it is to becomes portable. The act of packaging must be reversible; one must be able to recover the original structure and organization.
• It must be possible to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs and capabilities.
• A Web Publication must be available and functional while the user is offline. A user should, as much as possible, have a seamless experience of interacting with a Web Publication regardless of their network connection. We make no distinction between online and offline when defining Web Publications.
• A Web Publication, having an identity and nature beyond its constituent resources, will have metadata that describes the publication as a whole. We also introduce the abstract concept of a manifest, which serves to carry information about the constituent resources of the publication. The metadata and manifest will also incorporate information about the sequence and presentation of the content.
•A Web Publication must provide access to a range metainformation including (but not restricted to): ◦table of content, default or alternate reading order
◦security and authentication data
◦metadata like author(s), title, unique identification
Recommendation-track deliverables will contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs and capabilities. This includes general WCAG and WAI requirements of the W3C; additional extended requirements will be identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more stringent accessibility requirements.
With regards
Avneesh
-----Original Message----- From: Avneesh Singh
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 14:18
To: Ivan Herman
Cc: Deborah Kaplan ; public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft text for charter
On 28 Feb 2017, at 06:07, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
Ivan wrote:
[[
The Working Group will incorporate accessibility considerations into the
Working Group's deliverables. Recommendation-track deliverables will
contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of
readers with different needs and capabilities.
]]
may be considered to be superfluous in the charter. The reason is that this is a requirement for any W3C recommendation, mainly when talking about user-facing specifications like this. In other words, this does not add anything to what is already a default requirement, does it?
Avneesh: This is retained from the old text mainly due to the concerns of changing things too much after getting to a consensus on mailing list. This was a concern raised by Leonard in DPUB call 2 weeks ago.
Yep, you're right, I forgot about this. I was simply looking at the proposal
text.
Maybe what we should do is to then propose the whole text, but explicitly
raise my reservation as part of the discussion next week Monday. Would that
work?
Avneesh: Looks as a good plan to me. Accessibility group members can chime
in if any one disagrees.
For me, the important point is:
[[
...additional extended requirements will be
identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative
specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more
stringent accessibility requirements.
]]
because it shows that we _may_ have extra requirements and we intend to put these into the spec as well. For me, _that_ is the important point...
Avneesh: This is the core of the message that we intend to give. There would be requirements that are not covered by WCAG/WAI/ARIA, and we need to work on them in digital publishing working group, to ensure that it is possible to make WP/EPUB 4 publications accessible.
Absolutely. That text, possibly with word-smithing, is the essential part
that, IMHO, MUST be part of the charter.
I think we are in a wild agreement:-)
Avneesh: Yes.
With regards
Avneesh
On 27 Feb 2017, at 17:47, deborah.kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net> wrote:
I am fine with this text. It's longer than I thought Ivan wanted it to
be, but if he thinks it's aan acceptable length I think it's relatively
clear while also being explicit about the fact that we will incorporate
accessibility requirements in any recommendation-track deliverables,,
and the fact that we will be coordinating with other groups.
Well… it is a little bit too long, compared to the rest of the charter. That, by itself, may be ok, however (if I play devil's advocate, the following text:
[[
The Working Group will incorporate accessibility considerations into the
Working Group's deliverables. Recommendation-track deliverables will
contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of
readers with different needs and capabilities.
]]
may be considered to be superfluous in the charter. The reason is that this is a requirement for any W3C recommendation, mainly when talking about user-facing specifications like this. In other words, this does not add anything to what is already a default requirement, does it?
For me, the important point is:
[[
...additional extended requirements will be
identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative
specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more
stringent accessibility requirements.
]]
because it shows that we _may_ have extra requirements and we intend to put these into the spec as well. For me, _that_ is the important point...
My only issue is the following:
"The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with the WCAG Working
Group to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of its
recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology."
I don't think we should be limiting ourselves to coordinating with WCAG.
I would prefer "will coordinate with the WCAG Working Group, as well as
any other working groups as needed, to integrate …"
This may be vague, what about "wg-s concerned with accessibility', or something like that?
Ivan
Deborah
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Avneesh Singh wrote:
Dear all,
A reminder, we need to complete the text for accessibility soon. Please provide your comments so that it can be published with next update of charter.
With regards
Avneesh
-----Original Message----- From: Avneesh Singh
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:34
To: George Kerscher ; 'Ivan Herman'
Cc: 'Deborah Kaplan' ; public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft text for charter
Dear accessibility group,
After our call yesterday, George has merged the old accessibility text that
was proposed by Matt with the new text added by Ivan in the branch.
I will also like to mention that in the branch created by Ivan, the
accessibility text is placed at more than one places. The first paragraph
was placed by Ivan in the scope statement, and other part was placed at the
places where the charter talked about coordination with ARIA and WCAG.
We are fine with this split, and the new text snippet is the rewrite of only
the scope statements.
New text for scope statement:
The Working Group will incorporate accessibility considerations into the
Working Group's deliverables. Recommendation-track deliverables will
contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of
readers with different needs and capabilities. This includes general WCAG
and WAI requirements of the W3C; additional extended requirements will be
identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative
specifications. Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more
stringent accessibility requirements.
And following is the text in coordination section:
The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with the WCAG Working
Group to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of its
recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology. One or more
pipeline of the requirements will be maintained to manage diverse turnaround
times of the W3C groups.
With regards
Avneesh
----
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
----
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
----
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
----
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
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2017 16:06:05 UTC