Nick said: > In being reductionist, I don’t want to downplay or diminish any of the need for accessibility. I don’t know enough to know what additional support is needed, but are any of the asks specifically publication-related, or are a publications’ needs for additional accessibility also the needs of the general web. I assume they would be general, but again, I don’t know. Short answer: Yes, the identified accessibility needs are specific to publications. Medium answer: Where the DPUB and PWG accessibility people have identified needs we belive are part of the general web, they've been forwarded on to the appropriate groups in the W3C. Long answer: As Tzviya said, these are all documented in the use cases. Don't just look under the heading "accessibility"; the accessibility use cases were incorporated into the main body of the use cases. Some of the use cases aren't even specifically called out as acessibility, but are very clearly needed for accessibility, and are also specific to publications. We have also endlessly rehashed the debate over where do we draw the boundaries of a publication (eg, the entire range from "basically any HTML fragment" to "must have an ISBN"). There is no perfect answer to the debate. Every single argument folks have made on the question has plenty of merit, but the problem is that (1) there's no perfect place to draw the line, and (2) we need to draw a line somewhere. Let's take what we've already decided as givens. Deborah
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2018 01:11:22 UTC