Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Addressing APA feedback in FXL Accessibility Document #2659

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

wareid
Copy link
Contributor

@wareid wareid commented Oct 21, 2024

This PR includes some edits to address the feedback we received regarding the FXL Accessibility document from APA during our session with them at TPAC.

Two main changes:

  1. Adjusted the name of the document to include "Best Practices" to avoid confusion around conformance.
  2. Added text to further clarify the reading order section, including noting the difference between EPUB's concept of reading order and accessibility's concept of reading order.

Feedback welcome!

@gautierchomel
Copy link

Preview

@gautierchomel
Copy link

To me, the document still mix too many different problems for different audiences:

  • A technical approach to address machine reading (today Screen readers, but probably tomorrow, an On the fly reflow performed by a reading system);
  • Design oriented recommendations (section 2.5 Legibility and Visual Presentation);
  • Rendering of Fixed Layout by a Reading System.

Copy link

@avneeshsingh avneeshsingh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Regarding the title, the feedback from APA was to consider best practices and challenges because the document also does a good work of highlighting challenges for which we do not have a solution yet.
The recommendation was something like
EPUB fixed layout accessibility: best practices and challenges
George recommended to swap the last two words
EPUB fixed layout accessibility: challenges and best practices.
The title can be refined, but the main message for title was to mention both best practices and challenges.

Co-authored-by: Matt Garrish <mattgarrish@users.noreply.github.com>
@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member

What about matching the naming along the lines of our other accessibility documents and make it something like:

EPUB Accessibility -- Fixed Layout Challenges and Best Practices

@GeorgeKerscher
Copy link

I like this approach.

@avneeshsingh
Copy link

This will make the document look like EPUB Accessibility 1.1. This is exactly what we want to avoid. This document is more about best practices and challenges for fixed layout.
It will take time and significant research to reach the level where we can say that it provides techniques for meeting EPUB Accessibility specifications.

@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member

mattgarrish commented Oct 23, 2024

It puts it under the accessibility umbrella, but I don't think anyone would get too confused by a document called challenges and best practices.

The alternative would be to put these under the FXL umbrella, so have:

EPUB 3 Fixed Layouts -- Accessibility Challenges and Best Practices

I think the more problematic name is going to be the techniques document. If this is best practices, how do you differentiate that document without it sounding like a proper accessibility guide. But that's a problem for another day, I suppose.

@avneeshsingh
Copy link

avneeshsingh commented Oct 23, 2024 via email

@gautierchomel
Copy link

The key sentence of the document is in the overview:

An accessible fixed layout EPUB file is one that meets the accessibility requirements of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.x level AA [wcag2] and EPUB Accessibility 1.1 [epub-a11y-11],

It may be more apparent to have this stated at the very beginning of the abstract section.

@wareid
Copy link
Contributor Author

wareid commented Nov 19, 2024

See:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants