Addressing APA feedback in FXL Accessibility Document

[wareid]

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]

Preview

[gautierchomel]

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.

[avneeshsingh]

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.

[mattgarrish]

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]

I like this approach.

[avneeshsingh]

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]

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]

This looks better: “EPUB 3 Fixed Layouts -- Accessibility Challenges and Best Practices”

[gautierchomel]

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]

See:

• For EPUB Fixed Layout Accessibility:
  • Preview
  • Diff

[gregoriopellegrino]

The link to see the diff doesn't work...

[mattgarrish]

Ya, we ran into this yesterday with the schema.org vocabulary. The spec-generator tool keeps timing out so the diff tool can't get the file to compare against. pr-preview isn't working for the same reason.

@deniak do you know if this is a temporary glitch or something that needs fixing?

[deniak]

Ya, we ran into this yesterday with the schema.org vocabulary. The spec-generator tool keeps timing out so the diff tool can't get the file to compare against. pr-preview isn't working for the same reason.

@deniak do you know if this is a temporary glitch or something that needs fixing?

It seems a recent upgrade of chromium broke spec-generator. I'll see how to fix this.

[deniak]

@mattgarrish spec-generator should be back now.

[mattgarrish]

Yes, the diffs are working again. Thanks!