Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

garth: one more minute...

garth: let's get started
... I sent out malformed minutes, but didn't send the better ones
... let me know if I missed anything
... are there any objections?

[silence]

garth: minutes approved
... do we have Harriet Greene on the call? We have a new member from University of Illinois
... welcome in absentia :)
... update on merger: it's complete!

idpf w3c merge

(general rejoicing)

<Karen> Yeah!

<Vlad> Another yeah! :)

scribe: Bill McCoy is now digital publishing champion at W3C. Can you give an intro?
... I do want to talk about chartering

BillMcCoy: hello from W3C staff side
... I'm bmccoy@w3.org
... I expect to be a more frequent participant in this meeting
... I'm happy to be here. Looking forward to a working group.

garth: we have some tech discussions on PWP draft
... I'd like to move the penultimate agenda item up front
... can you go ahead on that?
... between BillM and Ivan, we can talk about the business group

Pub Groups’ chartering

BillMcCoy: the DPUB IG already has rough consensus on a possible direction for WG draft
... the most urgent thing is the broader IDPF community gets in the loop soon
... so we can get WG charter proposal as soon as possible
... so everyone should join publishing BG this week
... as soon as the BG is rolling, then they should have input into charter process
... the kickoff meeting for Publishing BG will be March 13 in London, details later this week
... let's get a WG charter, with input from BG, as soon as possible

garth: that matches my 2 cents
... the BG kickoff before London Book Fair
... and then we discussed a first F2F of digital pub working group in NYC in... May
... but there are some issues related to the U.S. going insane politically
... so we're not sure if the U.S. is a feature or a bug for meetings
... if we're heading for late May/early June f2f, we need to figure that out soon
... we have an offer from Adobe to host in NYC
... and we could have our co-chair
... and BEA brings pub folks to town
... we don't need to decide today

Bill_Kasdorf: the relationship between this IG and the WG
... will this IG wind up if the WG is chartered?
... if so, is there anything the IG can do to help smooth the transition

garth: I assumed the IG would morph to the WG

BillMcCoy: I don't know who's decision that is
... bandwidth is a problem
... and this group has acted like a WG
... so the default assumption is the IG would wind down, and some tasks would move to the BG or the CG
... but this group should discuss this

ivan: BillK, this is undecided
... We haven't discussed too much
... are there things that the interest group can do?
... the last six-seven months, the IG was preparing for the WG
... there are some pending issues around CSS, a11y, etc
... which of these should go to the WG, or should they stay separate?
... I don't have the answer
... if we think there's a need for an IG to stay, then we need to ask ourselves if it's realistic
... the community of tech people in publishing is not overly big
... we'll have the BG, the WG, some of us may be involved in epub3 maintenance in the CG
... we'll have to have chairs, staff people, etc.
... one possibility is that the IG dissolves, and people join the WG

Bill_Kasdorf: this has a big bearing on the scope of the WG charter
... if the IG exists, the WG charter can be narrower
... if the IG goes away, WG will need broader charter

ivan: what was put into the draft charter are those items that are clearly rec-track work
... I did not consider other things
... one thing from today's agenda is something from the mailing list
... to see exactly what our role be in the continuation of WCAG etc
... there's also the CSS-related work
... whether that needs to be in the IG, or that can just be in csswg

garth: wind-down can be independent of wind-up of WG

ivan: Aria is a bit different... dpub-aria work is rec-track
... so if it stays in IG, we must work with a working group
... so that needs to be in WG, and is already in the charter

garth: CSS-related work could happen in liason between WG and CSSWG

ivan: or the BG

garth: so there's at least three groups here--BG, WG, CG
... based on bandwidth, I think IG may want to wind down
... and all of us may be delighted at Garth's able leadership
... but I wouldn't see us doing both

clapierre1: the a11y task force published a note on WCAG gaps
... that should be considered for the WG

<dkaplan3> agreed with charles 100%

clapierre1: there are certainly some gaps

<dkaplan3> many things were left as "future work"

ivan: this is separate agenda item

WCAG and the WG

ivan: maybe George knows
... my understanding is that in the new WCAG charter, the publishing industry's a11y requirements are now in scope
... if this is really the case, that WCAG will pick up those items
... then I don't think it's helpful if 2 working groups do that work
... that can only lead to problems
... if WCAG is doing the work, then our job is to liase, offer oversight, bring new issues, review work...
... but the work focused on WCAG
... if not, then there would need to be a rec from Pubishing WG
... but I would be thrilled if admin fell on WCAG

Avneesh: the WCAG 2.1 journey started in 2016

<Avneesh> "Develop a recommendation-track update to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. This update will clarify and improve applicability to content on mobile devices, in digital publications, and on devices using a wider range of inputs such as touch screens and stylus digitizers, as well as adding improvements to better support users with disabilities including low vision and cognitive, language, and learning impairments."

Avneesh: that group wanted only dpub-aria, but we added publishing to their scope
... this was a reluctant addition to WCAG scope
... when we talk about practical things
... there are a lot of issues, such as a11y metadata
... WCAG doesn't think of this as a high priority
... there is a lot of uncertainty there
... this is a new thing for them; there is some resistance
... we need a big push from the DPUB community
... the ball is being passed back and forth. we need to know who is responsible

garth: does this need to be nailed down before the WG charter?

Avneesh: YES

<clapierre1> 1+

Avneesh: the IDPF has given a high priority to a11y, and we have achieved a lot
... we cannot drop that in W3C

garth: agreed

dkaplan3: I agree with Ivan that having one group focusing is good

dkaplan3: one problem with a11y task force was all the different groups with non-ideal communication
... but I want to emphasize that, although WCAG is theoretically open to DPUB concerns
... but we are a tiny priority, and they don't understand
... that publishing has a separate set of priorities
... and people on WCAG don't understand why they are particularly important
... So maybe we can get more publishing folks on WCAG
... or else we need other groups to advise WCAG
... but we can't just hope WCAG will understand today

ivan: we will have to have a joint meeting with WCAG

<BillMcCoy> +1 to joint meeting w/ WCAG

ivan: we cannot decide unilaterally
... there there is the a11y metadata story
... I understand that that community never did
... I think a11y metadata will be in scope for our WG no matter what
... for the WCAG story, the problem I have is that I don't know how modular WCAG is
... it was a monolithic document which addressed several things
... if we do WCAG work in our WG then we create a different document
... a REC is usually under the "control" of one WG
... there have been cases in the past where there was a joint publication of two WGs, but that's complicated
... so if we do it here, it would not be a formal part of WCAG; it will be a separate document
... which concerns me
... talking to WCAG people as soon as possible, in next few weeks, will be very important

garth: exactly
... who does the drafting? is a good question
... we need this meeting.

BillMcCoy: Jeff and Tim and others want is that there are things in EPUB that could benefit the web as a whole
... Media overlays is a great example
... it's not specific to publications
... but we should be thinking about making this an OWP feature
... packaging is another example, something that applies to more than publishing

<chaals> [+1 to getting DBup folks into Accessibility group. Note also that there is support for a11y metadata from others who are not currently engaged but understand the requirement - https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/82 … Note that WCAG 2.1 is essentially working on being able to add *specific, generally applicable* criteria - i.e. it won't make it if it helps some things but breaks others, and it needs to be directly about accessibility]

BillMcCoy: but let's do them in a general matter, not a publication-specific manner

George: I see that there are items in publishing that are specific to publishing
... for example, reading order
... there isn't that concept in WCAG, and it's specific to publishing, and very important for a11y
... can we identify certain things that are part of publication content that we could develop and have WCAG people review
... what is the breakpoint/handoff between the two groups?

Bill_Kasdorf: the fate of all the EPUB specs, including the satellite specs, specifically EPUB A11Y 1.0
... that was deliberately not an EPUB 3.X spec, but to be referencable outside of EPUB
... what happens to those specs in the future?
... that's the result of George's push for a baseline a11y spec
... I'm not sure it belongs in the EPUB3 CG because that is so EPUB-specific

ivan: I think it would be helpful if the a11y experts in the group draft, very explicitly, things you think are very necessary work items
... the generalization of the EPUB a11y doc might be one of them
... there is the metadata issue
... and maybe more to be added to WCAG
... we should bring a good list of items to these meetings
... I don't have the knowledge to make such a list
... so then we can say, for example, metadata is in scope for Pub WG charter, the other things might go to other groups, etc

dkaplan3: I'm going to do magic
... and answer what Ivan and George asked for
... remember the note that the a11y task force published last year?
... we know it doesn't cover everything
... but this note precisely states our a11y priorities, many of which can be addressed by other groups at w3c
... but this is a note to other groups dealing with a11y that we think need to be addressed
... so we should remind folks of this
... I don't think we should edit it
... we need people to act on it

Avneesh: epub ally is build on WCAG, but includes stuff missing in WCAG
... the techniques are in line with what WCAG does
... so this spec, in conjunction with the DPUB note, describe what we need
... how do we move EPUB A11Y spec forward in W3C? We don't want to just maintain, we want to move forward

<BillMcCoy> EPUB 3 Community Group charter include ongoing development not just "maintenance"

Avneesh: it would take 3-5 years to put everything in WCAG

<BillMcCoy> we can tweak if the language in the starter charter is not clear

Avneesh: that's not fast enough

garth: that's an argument for doing that in this WG?

Avneesh: yes
... CG looks too weak for more than maintenance

ivan: however, my down-to-earth job is to write a charter
... and I can't put the a11y note in the charter
... I would need the two paragraphs that defines in the charter level this is what this or that WG must deliver

<chaals> [WCAG 2.1 is on a very fixed timeline, so you need to have stuff ready for them on that timeline, and the rest might get into 2.2 or whatever comes next, which doesn't *yet* seem to have a time pressure]

ivan: the input docs are these two things (DPUB a11y note and EPUB a11y spec)
... then we can go back to WCAG and say, 'this is what we think shoudl be done'
... and we can ask them if it's ok if we do it
... there is a timeline with WCAG

Avneesh: there is some push to put things in WCAG 3, which is a long way off

garth: Ivan, it looks like you want a volunteer to draft charter text. Can Deborah or Avneesh do that?

dkaplan3: I'll jump in

<clapierre1> +1

dkaplan3: the a11y task force put itself on hold
... but we're seeing the bat-signal, and need to come out of retirement

garth: that sounds like an action item for the a11y task force
... and to provide the elevator pitch for a11y in the DPUB charter

<dkaplan3> +1

ivan: can I add one thing?
... if you look at the charter draft, one is the general description, which is where I need your help
... there are reference docs, which is easy
... and there's a liaison section
... so we have to have a diplomatically acceptable of how we would work together with WCAG
... I'll need your help there, too

<dkaplan3> Ivan, we'll have to call on you for diplomatic expertise!

BillMcCoy: I agree with Ivan about liaison with WCAG
... occam's razor is for things that will end up in W3C REC
... the a11y thing is intended to be a moving target
... but scope of epub3 CG should not be just errata, but also ongoing development of things that don't need w3c rec track
... I think the a11y stuff might be suitable for the CG
... the CG is more than errata

ivan: one thing, BillM
... as far as I know, the a11y it's much more important for certain docs to be recommendations, due to legal results

<BillMcCoy> EPUB 3 is an ISO Technical Specification and we plan to upgrade EPUB 3.1 to ISO Standard

<BillMcCoy> EPUB Accessibility as an ISO Specification in 18 months may trump EPUB Accessibility as W3C Recommendation in 3 years

ivan: notes may work for some things, but with a11y we may need recs

garth: EPUB3 exists in ISO world
... I think we should get this in the charter at least for discussion
... but more discussions to come about where the work would happen

clapierre1: the a11y task force will meet this Thursday to draft something for the charter

garth: there's nobody on the queue
... I thought the wcag discussion would take moments
... but it may be good in that Leonard is missing
... and he kicked off the initial discussions of the PWP topics
... the discussion last week about the definition of web publication, and the text about a11y--both of those were drafted by Ivan, so those are resolved
... so I'd consider that finished, then we can move to online/offline and manifests next week

<ivan> --- adjourned

garth: and as the hour has past, we are done!
... thanks to the a11y task force!