"...largest communities relying heavily on W3C specifications and technology" -> "..largest communities relying heavily on W3C specifications and technologies" (in the intro)

I have seen 'DPub IG' in A.4, and DPUB IG elsewhere. There should be consistency in the document (my preference would probably go to the latter). I have not checked whether the former variant appears elsewhere in the document or not.

I noticed this sentence in section 2.7:

Additionally, the EPUB 3.1 revision working group agreed to deprecate the speech properties due to lack of adoption.

This isn't technically true. EPUB 3.1 has removed the -epub- prefixed versions of the speech properties, along with others we defined. The primary reason is that these prefixes aren't compatible with the web and require an additional layer of support, but it's also been the case that having them hasn't hastened adoption any.

EPUB 3 still supports CSS 3 Speech as much as any of the browser cores reading systems are built on do (i.e., not at all). The properties are neither endorsed nor discouraged.

PDF is a key part of the Open Web Platform and certainly the most popular format used in digital publishing today. It is the second most used media type on the web, behind HTML, and a normatively referenced format in the HTML5 specification.
There also exists very clear guidance from WCAG on the using PDF in a conforming manner (https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/pdf.html). In addition, there exists and entire international standard (ISO 14289-1, PDF/UA, http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=64599) that addresses the accessibility requirements of PDF - and has been adopted (or will be shortly) by a variety of countries around the world.
It would be negligent to talk about digital publishing without reference to it.

I am happy to connect this group with ISO TC 171/SC 2/WG9 where the PDF/UA work is done to help in drafting useful text.

From Ivan,

     alternateFormats: [
        {
          uri: "dpub-accessibility.epub",
          label: "ePub"
        }
      ],

this means, as the name suggests, that an EPUB version of the document will also be created an published alongside the text itself. You can try, actually, to generate the EPUB yourself: there is a menu item to do just that when you produce an HTML. But if not, I can do it on my own machine (I did that script:-).

I saw this sentence and wasn't sure exactly what was being asked:

Further, the concept of skippability, in general, should not be confined to users of AT.

It was repeated again for escapability.

The first time I read it I thought the implication that these features must be available natively in browsers, but I'm assuming that the intent is that it is practical for anyone using SMIL playback, which isn't specifically an assistive technology. If so, it would be good to give more context, such as specifically mentioning the read-aloud feature of ebooks.

The W3C guidelines include the usage, when possible, of the Oxford comma. Eg

"Formats used by eBook readers and tablets for electronic books, magazines, journals and educational resources" -> "Formats used by eBook readers and tablets for electronic books, magazines, journals, and educational resources

This is a work in progress. No section should be considered final, and the absence of any content does not imply that such content is out of scope, or may not appear in the future. If you feel something should be covered here, tell us! @@@T.B.D.@@@

Should: Over the years, PDF has added many features to able greater accessibility (starting with PDF 1.3 in XX) in the form of Tagged PDF. This work was done

Should able be enable?

It seems class='appendix' is used inconsistently. The overall section element for the appendix has it, and some subsections have it as well. I'm guessing it's only needed on the higher level section. Could someone confirm? Then I'd fix it up.

Section 2.9 on semantic list heads has this paragraph before and after the example:

It is tempting to use HTML5 h1 – h6 elements but these elements may contain the ARIA role="heading" attribute, offering unwanted default navigation. A potentially useful option would be to include a role value as part of an element called "listtitle" (or something similar). The option to include a semantic title in a list requires support in visual as well as aural presentations.

What does the first sentence mean, though? The "heading" role is the implied semantic for h1-h6.

Also, what does "requies support in visual ... presentations" mean? Is it something beyond CSS?

Currently our Note is named "Digital Publishing Accessibility Note"
Should we consider a different name, maybe one more in line with what this Note is trying to showcase?
I am fine leaving this just thought I would bring this up before we publish.

The description text is a bit misleading. It says: 'However, the full gap analysis is included in the following table'. Note that there is no table in this document (although reading that sentence that is what one would expect) and, in fact, the reference leads to a wiki page, which is a list of references where the real tables are. Ie, 2 extra steps are needed to get to any table.

I would propose to spell this out a bit: make clear that the reference leads to some sort of an index page referring to specific tables. Actually, I wonder wether it is not possible to put that index into this document, ie, to have the list in

https://github.com/w3c/dpub-accessibility/wiki/A11Y-DPUB-Techniques-based-on-WCAG

indeed have it in this document in some sort of a table form, with links to the real wiki pages, like

https://github.com/w3c/dpub-accessibility/wiki/DPUB-Specific-WCAG-SMIL-Techniques

and others.

(This is only a suggestion, not a requirement from my part, though...)

I noticed one toward the beginning of the doc... There may be more.

Thanks!

I think this section should be amended in view of the newly created CG:

https://www.w3.org/community/mathonwebpages/

The group plans to address rendering issues as well as accessibility related issues. This CG should be mentioned and, I believe, the right approach is for the DPUB IG A11y TF members to follow what is happening in that CG and, possibly, join the discussion.

Cc: @pkra

"with the CSS Pagination working group" (in section 2.6): such group does not exist. The closest would be the "Pagination task force of the CSS working group"

The appendix makes a reference to the Annotation WG, and says

"User created annotations and highlights adding personal notes to a document must be accessible for creation, editing, and access. The W3C Annotations WG is aware of the accessibility requirement."

I am not sure this remark is really justified, in the sense that the A. WG is defining a general model and protocol but, at this point, the issue is not specifically addressed. With the charter of that WG ending in autumn this year, I do not think it will.

I would suggest to change this section on that the TF will stay in contact with the Anno WG and its descendants (ie, either a CG that will take over maintenance, or a newly chartered WG if that is indeed what will happen) to work on this issue.

replace WCAG Compliance to Conformance when referenced in Gaps

I'm not saying the guidance is clear and easy to find, but there is an example of creating an "h7" in the ARIA techniques:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA12.html

What it might be good to point out is conflicts between this model, h1-h6 (can you or can't you change the level of an heading element to bump it down?), and the document outline (if you use div+aria-heading, would that affect future implementation of the algorithm, or is the algorithm dead?).

section 2.7 says

"The Gap: Current W3C WAI Specifications and Guidelines have poor implementation, probably due to lack of authoring tools, reading system support, and implementation guidance."

This is a general statement which may not be justified. It should specifically say which part of the guidelines (I suspect related to phonetic spelling) have a poor implementation.

The section on drop caps implies that AT sees spans as word breaks. I've been discussing this with some members of the CSSWG, and they were very surprised by this behavior. Why does AT do this? Span has no intrinsic meaning, and visual renderers do not supply space around spans.

From @jasonjgw on January 30, 2017 15:17

Currently, there is no standard approach to marking up poetry. I think this would be an appropriate topics for consideration in developing the next version of the DPUB ARIA module, enabling assistive technologies or accessible e-book reading systems to facilitate reading and navigation by the user.
See https://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/PoeticSemantics
for prior work on this topic.

Copied from original issue: w3c/aria#519

Section 2.7 is pretty hard on PLS lexicons, dismissing it in one sentence:

The Pronunciation Lexicon (PLS) exists, but it is exceptionally difficult to use and doesn't scale well to a large publisher's use cases.

I think if you're going to be this critical it would be good to outline what makes it "exceptionally difficult" and exactly how it doesn't scale, otherwise how can the issue be addressed?

But why is CSS 3 speech included but SSML not? CSS 3 speech has no utility for pronunciation of specific words.

I personally think it's problematic that EPUB implemented a new form of SSML attributes. It was a good idea, but it should have been standardized so it doesn't require unique reading system implementations. The result we've seen is no support.

The usual jargon at W3C is to capitalize groups: "Working Group" as opposed to "working group", "Interest Group" as opposed to "interest group", etc. It is fairly often used in the document...

"However, all suggestions are based on the limited knowledge of the members of Digital Publishing Interest Group, and may be incorrect." I am wondering whether this sentence shouldn't be removed...

In addition to the Participants in this TF, we should add a section to acknowledge those who helped us with this note (Invited Experts etc..)

IE:
Peter Krautzberger
Romain Deltour
Jean Kaplansky
Matt Garrish

Others I am forgetting?

"the student would like to returned to the previously escaped block element" -> "yhe student would like to return to the previously escaped block element", section 2.5