W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

RE: DPUB Set of Web Pages

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:14:59 +0000
To: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR03MB27801F84AAEAC6C43C822B539BB70@DM5PR03MB2780.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
   Perhaps the DPUB group can find a more compelling way of applying 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 to documents - good luck!

I second that.  Dropping the need for additional navigation mechanisms within documents or software that is screen based is a hole in the guidance of applying WCAG to non-web ICT and should be revisited.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957 (Office)

From: Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:04 AM
To: Matt Garrish; 'David MacDonald'; 'WCAG'; 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL'; 'Wilco Fiers'; 'Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken'; 'George Kerscher'; 'Charles LaPierre'; 'Avneesh Singh'
Subject: RE: DPUB Set of Web Pages

I thought that I ought to highlight some earlier work related to applying WCAG 2.0 to documents - including the set of Web pages issue.

The WCAG2ICT Task Force, that I co-convened, published a Working Group Note https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ that included the concept of a "set of documents" that was supposed to be a mapping to a set of Web pages. This was supposed to be used in applying the success criteria 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 to documents.

Both "document" and "wet of documents" were defined - https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#keyterms_document and https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#keyterms_set-of-documents

Probably the DPUB group should at least take a look at this earlier work.

Having said this, I must point out that when EN 301 549 (the European equivalent to Section 508) was developed the consensus opinion was that applying 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 to documents using the "set of documents" definition did not capture the key accessibility needs. An unfortunate result of this is that in EN 301 549 there is no equivalents to 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 for documents (or for software programs).

Perhaps the DPUB group can find a more compelling way of applying 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 to documents - good luck!

Best regards

Mike

From: Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com]
Sent: 23 November 2016 13:17
To: 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>; 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL' <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>; 'Wilco Fiers' <w.fiers@accessibility.nl<mailto:w.fiers@accessibility.nl>>; 'Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken' <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>; 'George Kerscher' <kerscher@montana.com<mailto:kerscher@montana.com>>; 'Charles LaPierre' <Charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:Charlesl@benetech.org>>; 'Avneesh Singh' <avneesh.sg@gmail.com<mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com>>
Subject: RE: DPUB Set of Web Pages

Thanks, David, this is a good start. I'd just suggest that we keep any definition of a web publication agnostic to specific formats.

As Tzviya mentioned on the call, the DPUB group will be taking up the issues from yesterday on their next call, so we'll have more to say about example wording and metadata after we can involve the full group.

Matt

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: November 22, 2016 3:26 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>; Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl<mailto:w.fiers@accessibility.nl>>; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>; George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com<mailto:kerscher@montana.com>>; markus.gylling@idpf.org<mailto:markus.gylling@idpf.org>; matt.garrish@bell.net<mailto:matt.garrish@bell.net>; Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:Charlesl@benetech.org>>; Avneesh Saxena <Avneesh.s@gmail.com<mailto:Avneesh.s@gmail.com>>
Subject: DPUB Set of Web Pages

Note: DPUB members, this is my personal opinion, not speaking for WG

Today we discussed ways that we could role a DPUB package into our definition of web page.

DPUB packages have more than one URL, and as such cannot be considered under our current definition as a web page. However, we have a useful definition in WCAG which lends itself ideally to a DPUB document. That is a "Set of Web Pages"

set of Web pages

collection of Web pages<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef> that share a common purpose and that are created by the same author, group or organization

Note: Different language versions would be considered different sets of Web pages.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef

We could add something like this to the definition

"Example: An epub publication has a table of contents and 25 separate URLs representing each chapter of a digital book."

If the DPUB team has Success Criteria they would like to propose for WCAG, for DEC 1st, I suggest they submit them using this definition. For instance, if they want ways to link from a TOC to another chapter of the document and back, they could propose something like:

       "Every link from a Table of Contents in a set of web pages has a corresponding link back to the Table of Contents"

Of course this SC  is just off the top of my head but it gives an idea of how this type of SC could be written with this language.

=============
Also we discussed meta data as a means of reporting conformance. WCAG 2 has a discussion of meta data in Appendix C which may be useful.
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902<tel:613.235.4902>

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd>

GitHub<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 15:15:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC