Re: Page Break Navigation

> there is no author requirement

Exactly my point. To me, this seems like something that belongs in UAAG.
We don't need to go into that again. If everyone else is good with this,
feel free to note my objection and move ahead with it.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 12:26 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Wilco,
>
>
>
> Thank you for clarifying your objection.
>
>
>
> On the substance, I think that’s why it is a “mechanism is available” SC.
> For an ePub doc being used in an ePub reader, there is no author
> requirement (unless your accessibility support includes readers without
> that functionality, and it’s available at a URL).
>
>
>
> However, the reason the EPUB folks wanted this was for browser-based
> rendering of EPUB docs, where there is no in-built mechanism. I haven’t
> come across examples except the online kindle reader, but I can see it
> might be much more common in educational settings.
>
>
>
> I think the note in the intent is key to that understanding.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Sent:* 16 April 2021 10:55
> *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc:* WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: CFC - Page Break Navigation
>
>
>
> -0.5
>
>
>
> I believe that what this SC requires should be exclusively the
> responsibility of user agents and so does not belong in a recommendation
> related to content authors. My understanding is that some, but not all EPUB
> readers already have such mechanisms, and so that at best, this can be an
> occasional issue in the case that broad support for EPUB readers is part of
> an organisation's accessibility support policy.
>
>
>
> This has been discussed on calls before. I don't think further discussion
> is needed. Since I seem to be the only person to have this concern, I ask
> the chairs to note my objection and proceed with the decision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:27 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Monday 19th at noon Boston time.
>
>
>
> The Working Group has discussed the updates to *Page Break Navigation*:
>
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/page-break-navigation.html
>
>
>
> Call minutes:
> https://www.w3.org/2021/03/30-ag-minutes.html#item05
>
> https://www.w3.org/2021/02/09-ag-minutes.html#item09
>
>
>
> Survey:
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-fixed-ref-points-updates/results
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
> the CfC deadline.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers*
>
> Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules
>
>
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules