W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2017

RE: essential use case of personlization missed out

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:20:24 +0000
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
CC: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0301MB2090C7B7E49497C617AD6BC7F1B90@CY1PR0301MB2090.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Ø  In summary, these optimized publications are subject to metadata requirements enabling them to be identified as such, but not to any content requirements derived from WCAG

Seems like a media alternative under the current WCAG.  Media alternatives are subject to some success criteria but not others.


From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:16 PM
To: Alastair Campbell; lisa.seeman
Cc: David MacDonald; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: essential use case of personlization missed out

It should also be noted that Silver may combine user agent requirements and content requirements into a single specification.

WCAG is not the place for requirements or guidance for authors who wish to write content intended for very specific audiences that may not be broadly accessible. I think the way in which the EPUB Accessibility 1.0 specification deals with the issue of publications optimized for people with specific disabilities, but which may not meet more general accessibility standards, offers an interesting solution.
See section 5 (“Optimized Publications”) at

In summary, these optimized publications are subject to metadata requirements enabling them to be identified as such, but not to any content requirements derived from WCAG. Thus, for example, a structured audio book in EPUB format would fail to conform to WCAG on account of being inaccessible to readers who are deaf, but it remains nonetheless useful to its intended audiences and hence qualifies as an “optimized publication” that does not conform to the EPUB Accessibility specification as an accessible publication, but nevertheless remains subject to metadata-related provisions.

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:56 AM
To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
Cc: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com<mailto:david@can-adapt.com>>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: essential use case of personlization missed out

Hi Lisa,

I think that’s true. It is not that there is no content requirement, it is that the boundary between content & user-agent needs defining with some kind of working code. Until that is fleshed out the process of creating content requirements is too theoretical.



From: "lisa.seeman"


EA reached out to the user agent producers and they are not in a stable place right now. You can get it but it is not widely available.
I think that means, unfortunately, we can not not this as AA. but it should be art of user agents first.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>

---- On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:05:16 +0300 Alastair Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote ----
> there was a browser that changed the symbol set based on the concept code used, and the users preferred symbol set, it is opensource on github. But there was not the content to support it.

So there is no user-agent for this at the moment?

> What we need to do is have a requirement that content made for this audience

If it is content specific to certain audiences, how would that be scoped? Without a specific scope that is derived from the content, that puts it at AAA at best.

> the scope really needs to be written in terms of audience not content - and that is the challenge

Indeed, that isn’t how “content guidelines” work.

Is there an agreed & published concept set, the “Linked Open Data” referenced?

The links to conceptcoding.org/Ontonologies don’t appear to work.



This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2017 16:20:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:15 UTC