W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > February 2018

Re: Continuing discussion on Polyfills

From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:03:55 +0530
Message-ID: <A67338B95C924789A1BA9CAF919D7C87@AvneeshHP840>
To: <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>, "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Cc: "Ruffilo, Nick" <Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com>, "Jeff Buehler" <jeff.buehler@knowbly.com>, "W3C Publishing Working Group" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Responding specifically about accessibility.
The status is that only couple of publishing specific accessibility 
requirements could be incorporated in WCAG 2.1, because its architecture is 
oriented towards websites and, a deeper revision is required for 
incorporating all publishing specific requirements.
So, the accessibility task force will identify the requirements that could 
not be incorporated in WCAG 2.1 and make sure that WP/PWP/EPUB 4 are aligned 
to them. These requirements will eventually go in next version of WCAG, and 
if publication specifications are not aligned to it, then it is likely to 
create a major issue while accessibility horizontal review.

This is the practical reason for ensuring alignment with accessibility 
requirements. Furthermore we clearly know that accessibility is a much 
higher priority in publishing especially in educational publishing.

Some documents that we have created for listing the additional accessibility 
requirements are at A11Y wiki:
https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/wiki

With regards
Avneesh
-----Original Message----- 
From: deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 06:40
To: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken
Cc: Ruffilo, Nick ; Jeff Buehler ; W3C Publishing Working Group
Subject: RE: Continuing discussion on Polyfills

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 07:34:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:21 UTC