Re: Meta Data

Hi Tzviya,

To me, the first priority for having a success criterion about metadata is
to ensure it fits with the conformance claim section in WCAG 2.0 right now.
If the through metadata you can't express what WCAG itself recommends doing
with a conformance claim, then that seems too limited to me.

For reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims

Further more, we can't talk about conformance of sites. WCAG conformance
can only be claimed at a page level. At most a claim can be made that all
pages on a website are conforming. Practically, for any website larger then
a few pages such a claim is hard to make.

A second part to consider is how the WCAG Evaluation Methodology fits into
this. It does actually have tools to report on the accessibility of
websites as a whole (these are not conformance claims though). You can find
WCAG-EM Here: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/

Lastly, regarding Accessibility Conformance Testing Taskforce (ACT). It is
currently hard to speculate exactly what the outcome of this will look
like, but there are a few things we can reasonably assume today. A critical
component to why ACT is happening is that we want to be explicit about how
accessibility results are gathered. For the same reason you mention
indicating who certified something. Not all WCAG claims are equal. ACT
means to make the test procedures used for WCAG testing explicit.


I hope this sets a few things up for the discussion soon. I think there is
a whole lot of things to work through if we want to be able to get a
success criterion in, but I'm very excited to see if we can make this work!

Regards

Wilco

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <
tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> The properties that we have been working on are available in two places.
> There are some terms were written a few years ago (and derive from the IMS
> Global Access for All Project). These are linked to from
> https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature. The wiki details information at
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility.
>
>
>
> The newer, pending terms are available at:
>
> http://pending.schema.org/.
>
> http://pending.schema.org/accessMode
>
> http://pending.schema.org/accessModeSufficient
>
> http://pending.schema.org/accessibilitySummary
>
>
>
> If I’m understanding your proposal correctly, you would like to see a new
> property called AccessibilityConformance, with predefined values that align
> with WCAG levels. That sounds like a great idea, but we would have to go
> through the schema.org extensions process [1]. That is how we reached all
> of the other properties. We have also talked about including information
> about conformance and/or certification. We thought it would be helpful to
> include not just what the site conforms to but who certifies that the site
> is conformant. There are lots of sites that claim to be WCAG AA-compliant,
> but that is a very broad statement.
>
>
>
> So, if there is language on the wiki that you would like to edit so that
> we reflect more about WCAG, we can do that. We cannot add a property at
> this stage. We are happy to work on adding more accessibility properties in
> the future. The schema.org CG seemed really interested in growing this,
> not just from a WCAG perspective but also expanding scope to include
> information such as whether physical locations include wheelchair ramps.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tzviya
>
>
>
> [1] https://schema.org/docs/extension.html
>
>
>
> *Tzviya Siegman*
>
> Information Standards Lead
>
> Wiley
>
> 201-748-6884 <(201)%20748-6884>
>
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:52 PM
> *To:* Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken
> *Cc:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; Matt Garrish; George Kerscher; Wilco
> Fiers; WCAG; Charles LaPierre; Avneesh Singh
> *Subject:* Re: Meta Data
>
>
>
> Hi Tzviya
>
>
>
> The WIKI seems to be documenting the Schema.org accessibility properties,
> which is helpful but I'm not sure what I could recommend for that page
> given that it just documents what's in the standard, through an
> accessibility lens. Maybe I'm missing something.
>
>
>
> My proposal is to introduce a simply way to report conformance through
> meta data, and the properties I proposed where because I didn't see
> anything on Screma.org that did that.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <
> tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
>
>
> Proposing new Properties and their values to schema.org is not quite the
> same as making editorial changes to the wiki. It took months of work for
> the existing properties to be approved by the schema.org CG. These
> proposals look great, but they would need to be proposed to the committee.
>
>
>
> The changes that we can make at this point are to the language in
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility. There is no explicit
> mention of WCAG anywhere on this site. Would you recommend mentioning WCAG
> on this site? Can you provide specific language?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tzviya
>
>
>
> *Tzviya Siegman*
>
> Information Standards Lead
>
> Wiley
>
> 201-748-6884
>
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:12 PM
> *To:* 'David MacDonald'; 'Matt Garrish'; 'George Kerscher'; Siegman,
> Tzviya - Hoboken; 'Wilco Fiers'
> *Cc:* 'WCAG'; 'Charles LaPierre'; 'Avneesh Singh'
> *Subject:* RE: Meta Data
>
>
>
> Changing Wilco’s email to his Deque one (wilco.fiers@deque.com )
>
>
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <703-371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca
> <david100@sympatico.ca>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:09 PM
> *To:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <
> w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>;
> Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com>; Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh
> Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Meta Data
>
>
>
> On the call today it was decided to move forward with a new AAA for
> MetaData from DPUB perhaps something simple like
>
>
>
> SC XXXX Metatdata: Metadata is provided which describes the accessibility
> characteristics of the content
>
>
>
> The understanding could reference Schema.org
>
>
>
> It was also requested by dPUB for us to propose any new Meta Data terms
> for Scema.org we'd like to see. I suggest the following:
>
>
>
> (1) The WCAG level of conformance claimed
>
> (2) The technology relied upon for conformance
>
>
>
> For the first property I could see something like this:
>
>
>
> accessibilityConformance:
>
>
>
> with the following values for each of the WCAG 2 and 2.1 Levels and more
> could be added if further standards show up.
>
>
>
> levelWCAG2-A
>
> levelWCAG2-AA
>
> levelWCAG2-AAA
>
> levelWCAG2v1-A
>
> levelWCAG2v1-AA
>
> levelWCAG2v1-AAA
>
>
>
>
>
> ​I'm not sure how to do the 2nd. Technology relied upon​, because i'd hate
> to limit the values.  Maybe just start with the conformance level.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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> 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]
> *Sent:* 23 November 2016 16:55
> *To:* Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
> *Cc:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
> Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <
> w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>;
> George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>; Charles LaPierre <
> Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh Singh <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
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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> 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]
> *Sent:* 23 November 2016 16:06
> *To:* 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Cc:* 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL' <
> ryladog@gmail.com>; 'Wilco Fiers' <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; 'Siegman,
> Tzviya - Hoboken' <tsiegman@wiley.com>; 'George Kerscher' <
> kerscher@montana.com>; 'Charles LaPierre' <Charlesl@benetech.org>;
> 'Avneesh Singh' <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
> <david100@sympatico.ca>]
> *Sent:* November 23, 2016 10:52 AM
> *To:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman,
> Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; George Kerscher <
> kerscher@montana.com>; Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh
> Singh <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
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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>
> 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
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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>
> 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]
> *Sent:* November 22, 2016 3:26 PM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman,
> Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; George Kerscher <
> kerscher@montana.com>; markus.gylling@idpf.org; matt.garrish@bell.net;
> Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh Saxena <
> 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
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG