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

Re: Microsoft's ARIA annotations proposal

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 23:53:24 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
CC: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <4EF6316C-8A0C-44F2-B252-6D408746F048@adobe.com>
I view it as MSFT looking to address the lack of proper integration of annotations into the connection between screen readers (AT devices), OWP content and Web Annots.   I am not thrilled with their proposal – they would be well served to look at how PDF/UA addresses the same issues (albeit from PDF to AT, but the problem is the same).


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:22 AM
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's ARIA annotations proposal
Resent-From: <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 07:20:42 +0000

It *could* be seen as complementary. The Web Annotation spec does not include anything on whether the existence, addition, etc, of an annotation modifies the DOM of the annotated content and how. My reading of the proposal is that *if* the DOM is indeed modified then the modifications would include some extra ARIA attributes to help screen readers interpreting the annotations.

But I agree it is a slippery slope…


On 11 May 2018, at 18:23, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com<mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:

Is there some aspect that the Technical Recommendation for Web Annotations does not cover, beyond "Not Invented Here"?
I would anticipate formal objections to a new, competing specification.



On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote:

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead

From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 11:37 AM
To: Aaron Leventhal <aleventhal@google.com<mailto:aleventhal@google.com>>
Cc: ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-aria@w3.org>>; W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-dpub-aria@w3.org>>; DPUB mailing list <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's ARIA annotations proposal

+1 to Aaron, and I suspect that the folks over in dPub WG would be interested and supportive of this as well.


On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Aaron Leventhal <aleventhal@google.com<mailto:aleventhal@google.com>> wrote:
Hello, I was reading the ARIA annotations issue<https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/749> and the linked Microsoft Position Paper on Annotations<https://www.w3.org/2014/04/annotation/submissions/Microsoft_Position_Paper_on_Annotations.pdf>.

All I can say is, yes, we need this. With perhaps a few minor tweaks, the proposal is already pretty solid. It would solve a lot of real problems in group document editors. This would be very helpful for end users.

I'd like to see annotations sooner than the 1.4 time frame, and look forward to implementing in Chrome, and working with platform API specs and AT vendors as well.

I propose we get this on the agenda for an upcoming meeting.

Thank you,

John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049

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

Received on Sunday, 13 May 2018 23:54:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:25 UTC