Re: Collections of web pages

Peter,
Why isn’t that still relevant? An EPUB would still be needing to meet WCAG 2.0 for Section 508, and even in WCAG2ICT it isn’t clear to me which applies.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: "Korn, Peter" <pkorn@lab126.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 10:38 AM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: 'Avneesh Singh' <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Collections of web pages

Andrew – I respectfully disagree with you statement “we still need to decide if the EPUB is a set or a single page”.  I think what we need to decide is which success criteria make sense for an eBook, without regard to whether the text in WCAG is “web page” or “set of web pages”.  And what additional success criteria make sense for an eBook that may not (yet) be in WCAG 2.x – to either get them into the WCAG 3 pipeline, or a 2.next, or just held aside for ePub.

Peter
--
Peter Korn | Director, Accessibility | Amazon Lab126
pkorn@amazon.com

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 7:35 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: 'Avneesh Singh' <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Collections of web pages
Resent-From: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 7:33 AM


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.

The aspects from http://idpf.org/epub/a11y/#sec-wcag-eval that caught my eye as not fitting the ‘web page’ model were:

> it is not sufficient for individual Content Documents to have a logical reading order if the publication presents them in the wrong order.

AWK: My interpretation is that this is like saying that a web page that has an incorrect order for part but not all of its content still fails. Isn’t it?

> including a title for every Content Document is complementary to providing a title for the publication: the overall accessibility is affected if either is missing.

AWK: Yes, that is a difference. I haven’t looked at an EPUB reader in a while, but it seems that this is comparable to a single-page web app having the title be “Acme Reporting Tool” which would minimally meet the SC even if it would be helpful to do what Google docs does and have “Mydocument – Google Doc” which provides more specificity.

For an EPUB document, I don’t know if the expectation is that the EPUB reading system will surface the publication title at the highest level (e.g., “War and Peace”) or the more specific content page title (e.g., “War and Peace, Book One 1805, Chapter 1”). If the reading system just said the title and the user was able to easily get the rest of the context, would that be regarded as a failure?

> The inclusion of page boundary locations helps bridge this disparity by ensuring that those using reflowable media are not disadvantaged by their choice.

So Page titles comes up as an odd cross-over point, and the new SC “Explicit navigation markers” would probably benefit from a separate definition.

AWK: I think that speaks more to the need to have a way to talk about content that is presented in a way that emulates a printed publication, so maybe that is where a “digital publication” definition comes in so we can address the page boundaries, but we still need to decide if the EPUB is a set or a single page.

AWK