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: Mon, 14 May 2018 17:47:17 +0000
To: "t-cole3@illinois.edu" <t-cole3@illinois.edu>, '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: <8A45E5B6-1BF9-486A-94C2-C028DFB7709E@adobe.com>
I’m also happy to discuss how we are leveraging Web Annots in the context of PDF and WP/PWP going forward, including our need for some custom selectors…as I think the problems are indeed the same.


From: Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Reply-To: "t-cole3@illinois.edu" <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
Date: Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:54 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, '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>
Subject: RE: Microsoft's ARIA annotations proposal

Seems to me that part of this is about the differences between a general model that can be used to create standoff annotations (as well as embedded annotations) for a wide range of purposes and formats versus models that are exclusively for a limited range of embedded annotation types in a specific format or range of formats.  This has come up with regard to annotations in PDF (as Leonard mentioned), internal annotations in TEI, even in some early BIBFRAME discussions (that one went away for various reasons).  My desire would be to avoid a model in ARIA that is overly constrained and/or actually incompatible with the Web Annotation data model, in case ARIA annotations, even editing notes, need to be used for additional purposes beyond the MS use case and/or archived in a more format-agnostic, standoff way (rather than embedded). This should not be difficult, but it is concerning that ARIA issue 749 mentions a 2014 post from Doug about planned formation of Web Annotation Working Group and then nothing since (until Rob's post). Seems to me that the Web Annotation model could indeed be helpful here (as Rob suggested, in his unique, nuanced way) - for example to make sure the ARIA approach to annotations is complementary to the Web Annotation Recs rather than in conflict with them.

So I assume this is now with the ARIA Working Group? Several members of this Working Group have successful working relationships with ARIA WG. Not having been involved in the ARIA - DPUB IG work that led to the Digital Publishing WAI-ARIA Module spec, is there an obvious approach or strategy (beyond responding to the GitHub issue) for broadening the discussion and encouraging the ARIA WG to take advantage of not only the PDF experience with annotation, but also the Web Annotation Recs as the ARIA folks review and hopefully improve the MS proposal? Might ARIA WG be approached about inviting a few members of this WG familiar with Web Annotation Recs to an ARIA call discussing the Microsoft proposal? This is not about opposing the proposal, but rather suggesting it might be enhanced if broader context and compatibility are considered.

-Tim Cole

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 6:53 PM
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>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's ARIA annotations proposal

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<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
Date: Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:22 AM
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com<mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-publ-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's ARIA annotations proposal
Resent-From: <public-publ-wg@w3.org<mailto: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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Faria%2Fissues%2F749&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C9f9f191e15c6445d20c408d5b9bb6415%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636619136863592848&sdata=zYShpwAvZzd6upYnmSjSIet9o%2FcYSWku5Y0fYE7sFhA%3D&reserved=0> and the linked Microsoft Position Paper on Annotations<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2014%2F04%2Fannotation%2Fsubmissions%2FMicrosoft_Position_Paper_on_Annotations.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C9f9f191e15c6445d20c408d5b9bb6415%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636619136863592848&sdata=RZUAgTXNFbZtyjH%2FNyE%2BR3Wem0L6zfjX3o0CZkaHm3M%3D&reserved=0>.

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/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FPeople%2FIvan%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C9f9f191e15c6445d20c408d5b9bb6415%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636619136863592848&sdata=FzX%2B2DZ307KJ%2BGyxLBfxS%2FGTOrP%2Boxj2Jyr4f6QKSew%3D&reserved=0>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0003-0782-2704&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C9f9f191e15c6445d20c408d5b9bb6415%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636619136863592848&sdata=gE6zAMCo9F3NyBmp798wBUzTbVP821gKipS3cwp9V5w%3D&reserved=0>

Received on Monday, 14 May 2018 17:47:53 UTC

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