- From: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:06:29 +0000
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- CC: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <cc1f760b46b947b3890bf49b9ddb9115@E15MADAG-D05N03.sh11.lan>
As I said earlier, I don't think we saw a problem with the "set of documents" definition in the Task Force, the concerns over the document success criteria that relied on this definition were raised outside the Task Force.
Although we achieved consensus on the "set of software programs" this was because there was no sustained opposition. I made it clear at the time that there was little chance that the European team could incorporate success criteria that relied on this definition.
Best regards
Mike
via Newton Mail<https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti&cv=9.2.5&pv=10.1.1&source=email_footer_2>
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 5:30 am, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I'm sorry Mike but I don't see it like that at all. The note about breaking apart a set of documents means exactly that. If a file is removed and is no longer related to the set then it is considered individually. If one file is removed or changed, the set is is not broken apart. I have an 8 month old at home and I know the difference when she breaks a toy apart, and when a small piece is removed and changed. You really know it when something is "broken apart".
To break something apart is not to change one file. It is to "break it apart"... we went over these definitions together for months, and I thought we had consensus.
Anyway... certainly an epub document is a "set of web pages" when online. When offline, these notes do not restrict them in any meaningful way. If there is lack of understanding on the part of some, I'm guessing we could issue a note of what our intent was, referencing minutes from the meetings, but I think it's reasonably clear. I'm also fine if something else from the epub team is used that works.
Cheers,
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
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>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
The application of the four success criteria to web sites has never been in question. The problems arise when trying to apply these same success criteria to software and documents. In the WCAG2ICT we solved most of these mappings very well – but mapping the “set of” ones was always problematic.
The WCAG definition of set of Web pages is straightforward and simple to interpret – “collection of Web pages that share a common purpose and that are created by the same author, group or organization”. Crucially, there is no equivalent to the WCAG2ICT Notes 1 and 2 that state:
- Note 1: Republishing or bundling previously published documents as a collection does not constitute a set of documents.
- Note 2: If a set is broken apart, the individual parts are no longer part of a set, and would be evaluated as any other individual document is evaluated.
These are very strict and suggest that something that meets the set of documents definition at one time could easily fail to meet it as soon as changes are made to it.
All that you say in your final paragraph relates to the WCAG definition which lacks these two notes. So it is unsurprising that no comments were received about whether most groups of pages would meet the “set of Web pages” definition and whether any that did might at another time cease to meet it. This worry is unique to the WCAG2ICT definitions of “set of documents” and “set of software programs”. It was sufficient to persuade a substantial majority of the commenters on EN 301 549 not to query their omission – and a few to actively commend the editors for not including them.
I’m still optimistic that the DPUB group might be able to come up with a better way of ensuring that these four success criteria can be meaningfully applied to all types of electronic document.
Best regards
Mike
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>]
Sent: 23 November 2016 20:03
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>>
Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: DPUB Set of Web Pages
If we feel these result in real world issues that result in impact on PWD, then I think its important to resolve the reason they were dropped in the EN 301 549.
Personally, I haven't found any of those WCAG SCs to be frequent failures on modern web sites. However, if we feel they are important to documents, or software, I think it is important to convince the EN 301 549 team that our work on WCAG2ICT is solid and those SCs didn't need to be dropped. For instance, saying "any time a file is changed it's not a set anymore", seems a little off.
Otherwise, it could never apply in WCAG either... in 8 years I've never seen any comment to the working group that this is a problem, and I've never encountered that. And not one of our 1200 comments on the 2006 draft mentioned that, at least that I can remember and I read almost every comment as we were resolving them.
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>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
I agree with Jonathan that this is what is missing.
This is regrettable, but I do not believe that we had reliably testable viable requirements available to us, that applied to most real-life software and documents, that we could have added. If we believed that they existed we would have added them.
Best regards
Mike
From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>]
Sent: 23 November 2016 18:34
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: DPUB Set of Web Pages
> So what I'm hearing is that there isn't any missing accessibility bits on documents and software by dropping these, and the EN 501 349 benefited from our WCA2ICT work as is the 508.
What’s missing is the user’s ability to have consistently identified navigation structures and icons that are used on different pages and software screens. Also missing the user’s ability to jump past repeated blocks of content in documents as well as in software applications.
Jonathan
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 1:18 PM
To: Michael Pluke
Cc: Matt Garrish; WCAG; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; Wilco Fiers; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; George Kerscher; Charles LaPierre; Avneesh Singh
Subject: Re: DPUB Set of Web Pages
>>- including the interpretation of these success criteria in the form that they were written was unlikely to lead to an improvement in accessibility for the vast majority of ICT procurements (in the same >>way that they are for Web pages);
>>- much time could be wasted in all ICT procurements trying to identify if any of these rare sets of documents existed.
Yes I think that on the committee we felt the first was true. The second, is possible if not managed through education and messaging. So what I'm hearing is that there isn't any missing accessibility bits on documents and software by dropping these, and the EN 501 349 benefited from our WCA2ICT work as is the 508.
In the case of DPUB I'd be interested if they feel that since their documents are actually a "set of ..." they might get some wins out of them.
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>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
Hi David
I recall that a “set of software programs” was something that few of us have experienced although one member of the Task Force assured us that he had spotted one “in the wild”. I couldn’t recall whether we agreed that a set of documents was similarly rare (although I think that, with the very tight conditions, it probably is).
I do recall that one of the arguments for not including these success criteria for documents was the concern that a large amount of time could be spent by people evaluating to the standard to search through what could be large ICT systems trying to identify if there were any sets of software – only to get a negative answer in almost all cases. I also recall that a problem could be that something that did meet the set of documents at one point might no longer be a set of documents if updates to part of the set were made.
Overall, the conclusion were that:
- including the interpretation of these success criteria in the form that they were written was unlikely to lead to an improvement in accessibility for the vast majority of ICT procurements (in the same way that they are for Web pages);
- much time could be wasted in all ICT procurements trying to identify if any of these rare sets of documents existed.
This resulted in the decision not to include them (in their current form). I’m not sure that the case is strong enough to merit revisiting that conclusion.
Best regards
Mike
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>]
Sent: 23 November 2016 16:55
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>>
Cc: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>>; 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
Hi Mike
It might be worth it to loop the member of your team who felt it necessary for the EU to diverge from the WCAG2ICT on those specific issues... we did agree on the WCG2ICT that a "set of documents" would not be common in the document world, but it did work when applied to documents, which facilitated consensus on the WCAG2ICT for the entire adoption of WCAG to Software and documents.
I often find in standards, as you may have experienced, that sometimes just sitting down and talking together helps us unify and make stronger global standards that are not splintered. I'd be keen to sit down with your technician and see if we can come together.
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>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:
I agree.
I certainly wouldn’t recommend a solution that ignores those requirements. As I said, I wish you luck in getting a good solution to enable you to include them. If you succeed I, for one, would push to have this solution incorporated in any future update of EN 301 549!
Best regards
Mike
From: Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>]
Sent: 23 November 2016 16:06
To: 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>
Cc: '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
Yes, this is interesting, but I'm not sure how to respond. As we work to a web publication definition, there are challenges we'll need to address, but I can't see how we could develop a specification that ignores wcag requirements. You absolutely have to have multiple ways to access the pages of a publication, for example. In EPUB, the reading system facilitates seamless navigation from document to document through the spine (metadata about the order). There is also a required table of contents, and publications often have other forms of navigation, like indexes, access to static page break locations, search functionality through the reading system, etc. I'm fully expecting that we won't compromise anywhere, but details of the pitfalls you encountered would be helpful.
Matt
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: November 23, 2016 10:52 AM
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>>
Cc: 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
Hi Mike
>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.
Can you explain this further? I was an active member of the WCAG2ICT TF with you on all of those calls for a year.
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>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:32 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
Hi Matt
I think including a epub example in a set of web pages wouldn't preclude a more specific definition of epub at a later time, or even in a later version of WCAG ... on the other hand, maybe we could introduce a new term in 2.1 if we have it very soon.
It just seems to me that "a set of web pages" and inherent in that the "web page definition" of the base URL and associated assets, is a perfect short term definition that would accomplish what George mentioned about working epub into the web page framework so that the WCAG Success Criteria can explicitly apply to epub.
Although just the fact that they sit at a URL already allows WCAG Success Criteria to apply to epub, and WCAG2ICT applies when its offline.
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>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>> wrote:
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<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 Thursday, 24 November 2016 07:07:20 UTC