EPUB A11y improvements

[iherman]

These changes are based on the proposed changes by @avneeshsingh and the SC discussions.

Fix #42
Fix #41

Cc: @brewerj @mattgarrish @nitedoc @GeorgeKerscher @cmussi

---

Preview | Diff

[iherman]

@avneeshsingh I was wondering whether we want to add a reference to Silver/WCAG 3.X. At the moment, we refer to WCAG 2.X only.

Cc: @brewerj

[avneeshsingh]

@iherman EPUB Accessibility 1.x will be an incremental version and will continue to build on WCAG 2.x, we do not plan to do changes to basic architecture. Silver has a broad vision, and we intend to have all accessibility requirements of publishing industry incorporated in Silver. So, ideally when Silver will be out, we should not need EPUB Accessibility.

[iherman]

@iherman EPUB Accessibility 1.x will be an incremental version and will continue to build on WCAG 2.x, we do not plan to do changes to basic architecture. Silver has a broad vision, and we intend to have all accessibility requirements of publishing industry incorporated in Silver. So, ideally when Silver will be out, we should not need EPUB Accessibility.

Thanks for this clarification, @avneeshsingh! I did not realize that WCAG 3.X may subsume EPUB A11y.

I see that the AG WG Charter lists the Publication Working Group; do we want to mention Silver in the note on the coordination text related to the AG WG?

[avneeshsingh]

@iherman Your interpretation is correct, we got publishing added to the scope of WCAG 3.0 for this purpose. We should add coordination with Accessibility guidelines WG, instead of mentioning Silver specifically. We are working with AG WG right now also for adding requirements of page numbers in WCAG 2.2.

[iherman]

We should add coordination with Accessibility guidelines WG, instead of mentioning Silver specifically. We are working with AG WG right now also for adding requirements of page numbers in WCAG 2.2.

@avneeshsingh can you check whether the liaison text I had added on the AG WG is o.k.?

[avneeshsingh]

@iherman AG text looks good. If you like, you may add the following to hint the role of silver. It is light weight suggestion i.e. I would be OK if you decide to leave this addition.
"In long term it is envisioned that publishing specific accessibility requirements would be incorporated in future versions of WCAG in incremental steps."

[iherman]

"In long term it is envisioned that publishing specific accessibility requirements would be incorporated in future versions of WCAG in incremental steps."

Based on what you said, this is really a long term vision which may not be relevant for the lifetime of this WG, ie, not something for this charter. Let us leave this for a next charter :-)

[murata2makoto]

I have a mixed feeling. The charter does not mention schema.org or ONIX. This proposal introduces a lot about EAA. Is this a good balance?

[iherman]

I have a mixed feeling. The charter does not mention schema.org or ONIX. This proposal introduces a lot about EAA. Is this a good balance?

@murata2makoto I am not sure the comparison is relevant. schema.org or ONIX are all 'external' to our documents (and we refer to those from within EPUB), whereas the EAA regulations directly affects (possibly) one of our deliverables...

[dauwhe]

I have a mixed feeling. The charter does not mention schema.org or ONIX. This proposal introduces a lot about EAA. Is this a good balance?

I think mentioning EAA is appropriate. EPUB must be compatible with EAA to remain a viable format, and I would argue EAA needs to be compatible with EPUB to be viable :)

ONIX is independent of EPUB; it can describe EPUBs but says nothing about how they are constructed.

[murata2makoto]

I will probably have to wait for EPUB Accessibility 2.0 for handling pairs of ONIX and EPUB. Agree on the proposed change. I do respect EAA.

[iherman]

I would propose to merge this charter during or right after the upcoming PBG meeting in two hours. "Speak now or forever hold your peace" :-)