Carli Spina has published "WCAG 2.1 and the Current State of Web Accessibility in Libraries " in Weave.
Here's an excerpt:
Ensuring the accessibility of web content is key to ensuring that users with disabilities have equal access to online information and services. However, as a review of the literature demonstrates, even in the face of legal requirements, accessibility problems persist across the web, including in the online content created and shared by libraries. This article examines the new success criteria in the recently released WCAG 2.1, considers the opportunity they present for libraries to improve the user experience for users with a broad range of disabilities, and proposes steps to improve compliance with WCAG and online accessibility more broadly.
The W3C has released three web annotation standards.
Read more about it at: "Making It Easier to Share Annotations on the Web."
IDPF has released "EPUB 3.1 Now Proposed Specification."
Here's an excerpt:
Work on EPUB 3.1 began in October of 2015, with a goal of simplifying the format and better aligning with the Open Web Platform. . . .
The EPUB 3.1 revision also introduces a new accessibility specification and techniques document. Although developed as part of EPUB 3.1 and to provide guidance on making conforming EPUB publications accessible, these new documents are designed to be equally applicable to older versions of the specification.
NISO has released Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Project.
Here's an excerpt from the announcement:
The National Information Standards Organization has published NISO RP-25-2016, Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Project. This recommended practice on altmetrics, an expansion of the tools available for measuring the scholarly impact of research in the knowledge environment, was developed by working groups that were part of NISO's Altmetrics Initiative, a project funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The document outlines altmetrics definitions and use cases, alternative outputs in scholarly communications, data metrics, and persistent identifiers in scholarly communications. This guidance was necessary because, before the project began, scholars had long expressed dissatisfaction with traditional measures of success, such as the Impact Factor, but needed standards relating to other viable assessment methods.