Re: Looking for some clarification

Hi Matt,

I don't want to argue (LOL), I'm trying to learn / catch up, and so with me
you have a Standards wonk who's worked in web accessibility for 20+ years
(and more than 15 years directly within the W3C) asking newbie questions -
is all.

I tend to agree with your overall assessment: I too was trying to grok what
the 'landmarks' were doing, and/but my only point of reference was HTML
Landmark elements / ARIA landmark roles (i.e. <nav> / role="navigation"),
which serve a use for screen reader users at the HTML page level
(inter-page navigation). In that use-case, from an
accessibility perspective I've always suggested that *at a minimum* an HTML
document has (inside the <body> element) <nav>, <main>, and <footer>;
everything else is gravy.

But EPUBs are a different kind of beast, and it was both useful and
insightful to me to learn that the <nav> landmarks in epub (epub:type) were
originally intended for a slightly different reason, and I guess it's kind
of sad that their intended functionality is not being taken advantage of at
the level you had hoped.

With regard to your comment about Thorium, I agree that here, WCAG SC 2.4.4
would indeed come into play *when* (or here, because) that link-text is
being exposed directly to the end user, but as you note that is probably
not a universal (nor expected per the EPUB Spec) outcome. I can help my
client address that issue in their publishing system, but it does point out
a bit of a... erm... gap?

In fact, you are correct, this rightly remains with WCAG, as it seems to me
to be primarily an editorial issue, and while I'd never want the EPUB spec
to attempt to define "human readable", it *MAY* be appropriate to note that
the terms related to Document Partitions (frontmatter, bodymatter,
backmatter) - or, in fact any of the landmark values - SHOULD have more
'human-friendly' link values (mindful of i18n concerns, I'd not go further
than that: perhaps some examples using multiple languages would be useful
in the spec?) - which is NOT a specific WCAG SC per-se, but is certainly an
overarching intent of WCAG.

> ...given that reading systems aren’t consistently using the links for
their UI or exposing them, what do we think their function is? We’ve
effectively ignored them for a long time because of the lack of uptake.

Finally, I find it interesting that you are contemplating revisiting the
whole landmarks (via epub:type) concept - would one option there be to
deprecate the whole "shootin' match" as an idea overcome by time, or not
being adopted as designed? I'll watch for any thread that heads in that
direction.

JF

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 3:06 PM Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you want to argue that Thorium makes a case for human-readable labels
> (which is fine with me), couldn’t you also argue that this already falls
> under the requirement of 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context)? In which case, it
> would be covered by the accessibility specification requirements.
>
>
>
> I don’t expect we’d want to try and define “human readable” or require a
> AAA success criterion in the core spec, but you could point out what you
> think is potential jargon when assessing content for accessibility.
>
>
>
> At any rate, we may want to start back at fundamentals and better figure
> out why the landmarks exist. It shouldn’t be to duplicate the table of
> contents, and given that reading systems aren’t consistently using the
> links for their UI or exposing them, what do we think their function is?
> We’ve effectively ignored them for a long time because of the lack of
> uptake.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Sent:* July 29, 2021 3:09 PM
> *To:* Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
> *Cc:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>; W3C EPUB 3 Working Group <
> public-epub-wg@w3.org>; Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>; Ivan Herman
> <ivan@w3.org>; Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Looking for some clarification
>
>
>
> Hi Charles,
>
>
>
> Yes, and in fact it is that behavior in Thorium that led me to ask/state:
>
>
>
> "I am *presuming* that the Partition value (actually, any epub:type's
> value) should also use a "Human Readable" label (accessible name), as seen
> here with the epub:type of *bodymatter*, where the label is *Start of
> Content*:..."
>
> Matt's response suggests (to me) that this is currently not a requirement
> in the EPUB specification, that the anticipation/expectation of most
> reading systems would be to use the 'link' functionality of the <nav> list
> landmarks, but to 'swap-out' or replace that "Link Text" in one or more
> systems with a standardized, system 'term' (presumably so that all books
> would be using the same term, which isn't a bad thing at all).
>
>
>
> I'm the new guy here, but perhaps the spec should speak more succinctly to
> this however, with possibly a SHOULD statement (ref: RFC 2119
> <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>) that the 'link text' used here be
> Human Readable (for those reading systems, like Thorium, that simply grab
> whatever the authored value is and uses that.)
>
>
>
> Should I file an issue in GitHub?
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 1:56 PM Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> One other thing to note that Thorium Reader
> <https://www.edrlab.org/software/thorium-reader/> does expose the list of
> Landmarks as shown below:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Alt: Partial Screen Shot of Thorium showing the Landmarks section of an
> EPUB with the following landmarks defined: Cover, Title Page, Copyright
> Page, About the Editors, Contributors, Preface, Contents, Start of Content,
> and Index]
>
>
>
> These landmarks at taken out of the toc.xhtml file with <nav
> epub:type="landmarks" …>
>
>
>
> Thanks
> EOM
> Charles LaPierre
> Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
>
> Imageshare Product Manager
> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
> Skype: charles_lapierre
>
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2021, at 9:39 AM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> > Looking specifically at usage in <nav epub:type="landmarks">, is there a *minimum
> set* or collection of landmark-values expected in a publication?
>
>
>
> No. We’ve looked at this issue in the past, but the landmarks are for
> reading system use and there’s no requirement that reading systems
> implement any functionality based on landmarks. I believe the only
> behaviour that’s been documented as having some uptake is including a link
> with epub:type=bodymatter so that reading systems can automatically skip
> the front matter when opening a publication. But that’s not universal and
> not something we’d want to enforce now.
>
>
>
> > I am *presuming* that the Partition value (actually, any epub:type's
> value) should also use a "Human Readable" label (accessible name),
>
>
>
> It would be helpful if the links were exposed to users, yes, but the
> landmarks links are the more central part. The original idea was that the
> reading system could use these links to implement its UI (e.g., have a
> dedicated button to open a glossary or index), so the text of the links
> would most likely be discarded to provide a consistent interface. Listing
> all kinds of general content destinations in the landmarks for users is
> largely redundant with the table of contents.
>
>
>
> > *Document Partitions* vs. *Document Sections and Components*, does one
> category have stronger or more important semantics in practical usage?
>
>
>
> Front, body and back matter are conceptual divisions of a publication that
> overarch the content. Front matter in most English texts, for example, is
> demarked by roman numerals and contains title pages, tables of contents,
> dedications, forwards, etc.
>
>
>
> You don’t necessarily have to pick only one semantic, in other words, as
> this isn’t the role attribute where only one is recognized. All of the
> listed semantics are applicable. This is also because the semantics (and
> epub:type) were designed first for publishers wanting to use the semantics
> in internal workflows.
>
>
>
> They then took on a life of their own and have been used (and abused) in a
> variety of ways for different purposes in EPUB. Placing them on links in
> the landmarks is a useful hack, for example, but what does it mean that a
> link is the front matter and/or a forward? That the semantics describe what
> is at the end of the link is a creation that only exists for the landmarks,
> I believe.
>
>
>
> Structuring the list of landmarks probably does nothing but further
> complex an underutilized feature of EPUB. You’re starting to turn it back
> into a table of contents. You could put two semantics on a single item if
> it makes sense (e.g., a forward is also your first piece of front matter),
> but otherwise I’d keep the list flat. I’m kind of surprised the restriction
> to a flat list of entries, as we have for the page list, isn’t also defined
> for the landmarks.
>
>
>
> > why is the Structural Semantics Vocabulary non-normative in the
> Recommendation?
>
>
>
> The appendixes are normative unless marked otherwise and I don’t see a
> non-normative label on the vocabulary. Where are you seeing it is
> informative?
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Sent:* July 29, 2021 12:45 PM
> *To:* W3C EPUB 3 Working Group <public-epub-wg@w3.org>; Avneesh Singh <
> avneesh.sg@gmail.com>; Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Looking for some clarification
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> As I continue to digest the current EPUB 3.3 Rec, I'd like to ask some
> specific questions (if I may) regarding *Structural Semantics Vocabulary*
> *.
>
> Specifically, I am looking to understand the
> relationship/similarities/differences between Document Partitions
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-33/#partitions> and Document Sections and
> Components <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-33/#sections>, as they appear (to
> me) to be very similar in function. (But, for example, would/could a
> Section or Component be a child of a Partition? Or are they hierarchically
> equal? )
>
>    - Looking specifically at usage in <nav epub:type="landmarks">, is
>    there a *minimum set* or collection of landmark-values expected in a
>    publication?
>
>
>    - if yes, what are they?
>       - if no, should there be? (why/why not?)
>
>
>    - Additionally, from an accessibility perspective, while the Rec is
>    currently silent on this specific scenario, based on the following supplied code
>    example <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-33/#example-33> I am *presuming*
>    that the Partition value (actually, any epub:type's value) should also use
>    a "Human Readable" label (accessible name), as seen here with the epub:type
>    of *bodymatter*, where the label is *Start of Content*:
>
> <*nav* epub:type="landmarks">
>
>     <*h2*>Guide</*h2*>
>
>     <*ol*>
>
>         <*li*><*a* epub:type="toc" href="#toc">Table of Contents</*a*></
> *li*>
>
>         <*li*><*a* epub:type="loi" href="content.html#loi">List of
> Illustrations</*a*></*li*>
>
>         <*li*><*a* epub:type="bodymatter" href="content.html#bodymatter">Start
> of Content</*a*></*li*>
>
>     </*ol*>
>
> </*nav*>
>
>
>
> I ask this, because currently I am seeing (in sample books I am reviewing)
> that in many instances the epub:type value is being echoed as the
> human-readable label as well (i.e. *<a epub:type="Frontmatter"
> href="...">Frontmatter</a>*), which my gut is cringing at, as being less
> than useful for some users with different forms of cognitive disability.
> (It's a bit of a stretch to be sure, but WCAG SC 3.1.3 Unusual Words
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#unusual-words> (Level AAA) states: *A
> mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words or
> phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon.
> - *and to *my* mind at least, *Frontmatter *is fairly "jargony
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-jargon>" on the surface - it's clearly
> not a common term in regular public usage AFAIK. Ditto "backmatter".)
> (@Avneesh?)
>
>
>    - Returning to  *Document Partitions* vs. *Document Sections and
>    Components*, does one category have stronger or more important
>    semantics in practical usage? i.e. both *Frontmatter *and *Forward *feel
>    very similar (synonymous?) to each other conceptually - If I had to choose
>    just one, which would/should I choose? (and why?) Or, as I asked
>    previously, could I/would I seek to do something like this?
>
> <*nav* epub:type="landmarks">
>
>     <*h2*>Guide</*h2*>
>
>     <*ol*>
>
>         <*li*><*a* epub:type="Frontmatter" href="content.html#frontmatter"
> >Frontmatter</*a*> (* ya, yech)
>
>             <ol>
>
>                 <li><a epub:type="Forward"
> href="content.html#forward">Forward</a></li>
>
>                 <li><a epub:type="Preface"
> href="content.html#preface">Preface</a></li>
>
>             </ol>
>
>         </*li*>
>
>         <*li*><*a* epub:type="loi" href="content.html#loi">List of
> Illustrations</*a*></*li*>
>
>         <*li*><*a* epub:type="bodymatter" href="content.html#bodymatter">Start
> of Content</*a*></*li*>
>
>     </*ol*>
>
> </*nav*>
>
> (Or am I overthinking this?)
>
> Thanks in advance for any insights you can provide me.
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> (* At the risk of asking too many questions, why is the Structural
> Semantics Vocabulary non-normative in the Recommendation? It appears to be
> furnishing specific definitions to multiple value terms. As a standards
> wonk, it strikes me that those definitions would probably want to be
> normative - or, again, am I missing something here? @Ivan - has there been
> any discussion of moving those definitions into the proposed W3C Registry
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/335>?)
>
> --
>
> *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>


-- 
*John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"

Attachments

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2021 20:52:46 UTC