14:49:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #epub-a11y
14:49:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-epub-a11y-irc
14:49:47 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #epub-a11y
14:49:57 <avneeshsingh> zakim, this will be epub-a11y
14:49:57 <Zakim> ok, avneeshsingh
14:50:21 <avneeshsingh> present+
14:50:39 <avneeshsingh> Chair: avneeshsingh
14:53:25 <MattChan> MattChan has joined #epub-a11y
14:57:51 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #epub-a11y
15:02:45 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #epub-a11y
15:02:52 <CharlesL> present+
15:02:53 <mgarrish> present+
15:02:56 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #epub-a11y
15:02:57 <juliette_mcshane> juliette_mcshane has joined #epub-a11y
15:02:57 <avneeshsingh> https://w3c.github.io/epub-specs/epub33/a11y/index.html
15:03:01 <juliette_mcshane> present+
15:03:06 <tzviya> present+
15:03:21 <George> George has joined #epub-a11y
15:03:29 <George> present+
15:03:29 <MattChan> present+
15:03:36 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #epub-a11y
15:04:02 <MattChan> scribe+
15:04:07 <BenSchroeter> present+
15:04:44 <avneeshsingh> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/1459
15:04:54 <MattChan> TOPIC: Approaches for elevating EPUB accessibility to new versions of WCAG
15:04:58 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: there are 3 options
15:05:00 <Cristina> Cristina has joined #epub-a11y
15:05:16 <Cristina> present+
15:05:21 <MattChan> ... Hard wire EPUB Accessibility 1.1 with WCAG 2.1 (or whatever the current version is)
15:05:43 <MattChan> ... if publisher wants to use a lower version of WCAG, they will use the older version of a11y spec
15:05:49 <MattChan> that is option 1
15:06:05 <MattChan> ... option 2: Allow EPUB Accessibility 1.1 to refer to different versions of WCAG (version 2.0 onwards).
15:06:13 <MattChan> ... but downside is that this is more complex
15:06:35 <MattChan> option 3: EPUB Accessibility 1.1 has date-less or version-less reference to WCAG (i.e. the lastest version always)
15:06:47 <MattChan> ... this is approach that we take towards compatibility with HTML
15:07:03 <MattChan> ... but accessibility generally moves at a slower pace
15:07:19 <MattChan> ... this also makes it mandatory for authors to comply with the lastest WCAG
15:07:25 <mgarrish> q+
15:07:41 <MattChan> ... also, epubs aren't updated like webpages, once published, they aren't necessarily updated
15:07:53 <avneeshsingh> ack matt
15:08:06 <MattChan> mgarrish: there were also intermediate options discussed in the issue
15:08:06 <avneeshsingh> ack next
15:08:21 <MattChan> ... like make minimum 2.1, but recommend that publishers use the current WCAG
15:08:38 <MattChan> ... i.e. set a floor beyond which you can't go, but encourage use of latest
15:08:48 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:09:07 <MattChan> ... romain also suggested that we encourage use of latest, but allow compliance with older versions as long as they disclose which version they are using
15:09:20 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:09:20 <tzviya> q+
15:09:58 <MattChan> tzviya: i like matt and romains proposal for their greater flexibility
15:10:29 <avneeshsingh> ack tz
15:10:48 <MattChan> Cristina: can we get more explanation of option 3?
15:10:53 <Cristina_> Cristina_ has joined #epub-a11y
15:11:00 <Cristina_> present+
15:11:15 <MattChan> MattChan: it would be an undated version, essentially as soon as 2.2 comes out, publishers would have to comply with 2.2 to comply with a11y spec
15:11:29 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:11:56 <MattChan> Cristina_: normally once an epub is released, publishers treat it like a released product. Static, not requiring updates.
15:12:19 <BenSchroeter> q+
15:12:21 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:12:32 <MattChan> ... also, with EUAA requiring that epubs comply with spec, tying spec to most up-to-date WCAG places a huge burden on them
15:12:47 <MattChan> ... i prefer the solution where publishers just declare which accessibility version they are using
15:13:06 <MattChan> ... it would be very complex for publishers to identify and update which titles they have to update
15:13:13 <avneeshsingh> ack ben
15:13:16 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: option 3 sounds like it is not the favorite of anyone
15:13:28 <MattChan> BenSchroeter: +1 to Cristina's comment
15:13:30 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:13:52 <MattChan> ... there is always going to be lag between when a new standard is announced and when the publisher can begin to react to the new standard
15:13:53 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:13:55 <MattChan> ... it can be slow
15:14:16 <Cristina_> q+
15:14:32 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:14:41 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: and it seems like no one likes Option 1, hardwiring spec to WCAG version 2.1
15:15:23 <avneeshsingh> ack cris
15:15:38 <MattChan> ... we could update the spec to future versions of WCAG under option 1, but then there is the additional overhead of doing this
15:15:58 <MattChan> Cristina_: can we wait to resolve on which approach to take until the next call?
15:16:10 <MattChan> ... we will then have better understanding of what the EUAA requires of the spec
15:16:13 <George> 5q+
15:16:26 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:16:34 <avneeshsingh> ack george
15:16:46 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: we're not making any final decision now. We'll just post the results of a vote on github as a proposal for people to comment on
15:16:51 <mgarrish> q+
15:17:22 <MattChan> George: so we're proposing that we set a floor of WCAG 2.1, but encourage that publishers use the latest WCAG?
15:17:29 <avneeshsingh> ack mg
15:17:55 <tzviya> q+
15:17:58 <MattChan> mgarrish: yeah, and then romain suggested that we not have a hard floor, and instead just subject it to an obligation to disclose the version used
15:18:02 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:18:13 <avneeshsingh> ack tzviya
15:18:35 <MattChan> ... and then also, when we refer to the latest version of WCAG, does that refer only to WCAG 2.x, or also 3+?
15:19:04 <MattChan> tzviya: I think we can leave it as "latest version", but we inside this group will know that we are referring to 2.x only. 3+ is not coming along that quickly
15:19:23 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:19:46 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:19:48 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: so, do we want to establish a floor at WCAG 2.1?
15:19:58 <BenSchroeter> q+
15:20:09 <avneeshsingh> ack ben
15:20:37 <MattChan> BenSchroeter: publishers have existing titles that align with 2.0, so are we saying that those are not accessible?
15:20:54 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: those would be accessible per spec 1.0, but not spec 1.1
15:21:42 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:21:58 <mgarrish> q+
15:22:50 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: in summary, we are proposing option 2: referring to the latest WCAG 2.x, but providing the option to publishers to use earlier versions (up to 2.0)
15:23:08 <George> q+
15:23:09 <avneeshsingh> ack mg
15:23:44 <MattChan> mgarrish: regarding the question of when publishers should "re-check" their connect for accessibility, maybe our guidance should be that publishers should only do that if they re-release their content
15:23:57 <CharlesL> q+
15:23:59 <avneeshsingh> ack george
15:24:10 <MattChan> ... but maybe it would be better to leave that to legislation to be decided
15:24:40 <MattChan> George: so will this be backwards compatible?
15:25:06 <MattChan> ... so that older publications would conform to the spec without being touched?
15:25:09 <avneeshsingh> ack next
15:25:10 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: yes
15:25:51 <MattChan> CharlesL: if we wanted to explore option 3 (i.e. versionless), couldn't that just be tied to the version of WCAG that was current as of the publication date?
15:26:08 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:26:10 <George> q+
15:26:12 <MattChan> ... so that years later, that publication would still be spec compliance because of its earlier publication date
15:26:20 <avneeshsingh> ack george
15:26:26 <MattChan> s/spec compliance/spec compliant
15:26:39 <mgarrish> q+
15:26:56 <avneeshsingh> ack mg
15:27:10 <MattChan> George: that would make it very complicated for users to know what to expect in terms of a11y. It would require calculation as to which WCAG was current at the time of publishing...
15:27:43 <MattChan> mgarrish: for publications, we have to accept that they are created according to a spec at a given point in time
15:27:49 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:27:52 <MattChan> ... unlike other web content
15:28:33 <MattChan> CharlesL: I like option 2 anyway, was just an idea
15:28:43 <avneeshsingh> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/1454
15:29:00 <MattChan> TOPIC: Make WCAG AA a requirement for EPUB Accessibility 1.1
15:29:25 <MattChan> mgarrish: this is another question of whether we set a floor, and what floor, but for WCAG levels (A, AA, etc.)
15:29:33 <CharlesL> q+
15:29:51 <avneeshsingh> ack charles
15:30:00 <MattChan> ... should we set a floor at AA, which is what most legislation seems to be heading towards?
15:30:14 <George> q+
15:30:18 <MattChan> CharlesL: for Global Certified Accessible, the floor is AA right now
15:30:35 <MattChan> ... we were concerned that publishers wouldn't get on board
15:30:43 <Cristina_> q+
15:30:46 <MattChan> ... but we've found support for the AA standard
15:30:52 <MattChan> ... in practice
15:31:06 <avneeshsingh> ack george
15:31:22 <CharlesL> q+
15:31:44 <avneeshsingh> ack cris
15:31:46 <MattChan> George: i think that the real hurdles for publishers is in level A anyway, so moving to AA is not that much more difficult, in my mind
15:32:01 <mgarrish> q+
15:32:11 <avneeshsingh> ack char
15:32:11 <MattChan> Cristina_: agree with respect to current and future publications, but there is still the issue of existing publications
15:32:39 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:33:07 <MattChan> CharlesL: the language of parts is in the AA level, so books written in multiple languages are a lot of work for publishers wishing for AA level
15:33:26 <avneeshsingh> ack mg
15:33:32 <MattChan> ... right now, for GCA, publishers who do these types of books are just complying with level A
15:33:43 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: level A is also fairly strict for fixed layouts
15:34:04 <MattChan> mgarrish: with respect to AAA, it is very theoretical. Nothing really uses it right now
15:34:35 <George> q+
15:34:35 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:34:35 <tzviya> q+
15:34:43 <MattChan> ... in terms of meeting level A, don't forget that it is always an option for publishers to state that they meet Level A without strictly adhering to a11y spec
15:35:15 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: what we've heard now is mostly from reps in US and Italy etc. but a11y compliance is way behind in other parts of the world
15:35:34 <MattChan> ... would setting a floor at AA, would this be unrealistic for publishing in other parts of the world?
15:35:37 <avneeshsingh> ack george
15:36:23 <MattChan> George: About the language switching, we will need to put out some best practices about this. Just because there is a referrence to something in an english book that is from a foreign language, there doesn't need to be a lang tag around it.
15:36:27 <avneeshsingh> ack tzviy
15:36:46 <MattChan> ... there are lots of borrowed terms that are generally accepted as being english
15:37:20 <MattChan> tzviya: when we write accessibility statements for websites, we state that we are "striving" for AA compliance, because we know that there could be things missing
15:37:23 <George> q+
15:37:44 <MattChan> ... similarly for publishers, even those who have been certified, it is still possible for something to be missing from one of the titles
15:37:50 <Bill_Kasdorf_> Bill_Kasdorf_ has joined #epub-a11y
15:38:02 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:38:03 <Bill_Kasdorf_> present+
15:38:15 <Bill_Kasdorf_> Sorry to be late. For some reason this wasn't in my calendar.
15:38:15 <MattChan> ... if a customer identifies an issue, we will go back and remediate it, but that doesn't mean that we should hold ourselves to a lower standard
15:38:50 <MattChan> George: +1. We'd expect to get objections if our spec required perfection
15:38:54 <avneeshsingh> EPUB Publications MUST meet WCAG 2.0 Level A to be conformant with this document, but it is RECOMMENDED that they meet Level AA
15:39:18 <Bill_Kasdorf_> +1 to George
15:39:26 <Cristina_> q+
15:39:27 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: this is what it says currently
15:39:28 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:39:33 <Bill_Kasdorf_> q+
15:39:37 <MattChan> ... does it require change?
15:39:40 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:39:50 <avneeshsingh> ack george
15:40:09 <mgarrish> q+
15:40:13 <BenSchroeter__> BenSchroeter__ has joined #epub-a11y
15:40:47 <avneeshsingh> ack cris
15:41:29 <MattChan> Cristina_: maybe it could say "highly" recommended, or "strongly" recommended? Along with greater explanation of why AA is better than A
15:41:30 <avneeshsingh> ack next
15:41:57 <avneeshsingh> ack mg
15:41:58 <MattChan> Bill_Kasdorf_: i think it would be stronger to say "SHOULD" rather than "RECOMMENDED"
15:42:16 <MattChan> mgarrish: recommended and should are equivalent, normatively speaking
15:42:48 <MattChan> ... but do we want to be the authority telling people what to do? Or should we be more accommodative?
15:43:28 <MattChan> ... but maybe we should leave floor setting to legislation, while using the spec to encourage publishers to move to higher levels?
15:43:40 <Cristina_> q+
15:44:00 <avneeshsingh> ack cris
15:44:35 <MattChan> ... and just clearly setting out why it is important to strive for higher levels of a11y compliance
15:44:44 <CharlesL> +1 I am fine with that as well.
15:44:54 <MattChan> Cristina_: we should explain why we encourage one level over another
15:45:01 <avneeshsingh> proposed: maintain recommendation of AA, but provide explanations why levels are recommended.
15:45:28 <mgarrish> +1
15:45:29 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: leaving it to MattG to come up with the final language
15:45:30 <tzviya> +1
15:45:30 <juliette_mcshane> +1
15:45:31 <CharlesL> +1
15:45:32 <Bill_Kasdorf_> +1
15:45:33 <MattChan> +1
15:45:36 <Cristina_> +1
15:45:42 <George> +1
15:45:44 <avneeshsingh> resolved
15:45:50 <BenSchroeter__> +1
15:45:55 <avneeshsingh> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/1455
15:46:01 <MattChan> TOPIC: Reporting conformance
15:46:43 <MattChan> mgarrish: there are a number of different ways we could approach conformance
15:46:57 <CharlesL> q+
15:47:14 <MattChan> ... one way, 2 conformance statements, 1 for spec, and 1 for WCAG
15:47:43 <MattChan> ... another way, move away from tying this to URLs, and just use text subject to a common pattern
15:48:02 <George> q+
15:48:14 <MattChan> ... but we probably can't resolve on this until we first resolve the questions of WCAG versions and levels
15:48:31 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:48:40 <avneeshsingh> ack charl
15:48:48 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: in the issue, there was talk about harmonizing ONIX and our conformance statements, this is a good thing
15:49:15 <avneeshsingh> q?
15:49:15 <MattChan> CharlesL: both approaches above make sense to me
15:49:33 <MattChan> ... one thing, right now vendors like vitalsource are looking in the metadata for a specific string
15:49:50 <MattChan> ... and multiple conformsto statements confused their systems
15:50:00 <avneeshsingh> ack geor
15:50:15 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: we'll have to keep backwards compatibility in mind for that reason
15:50:16 <mgarrish> q+
15:50:33 <avneeshsingh> ack mg
15:51:00 <MattChan> George: can you clarify the pattern we would use? what that would mean?
15:51:50 <MattChan> mgarrish: yeah, so we could specify an order for spec number, WCAG version and levels, so that the text conformance statement could still be machine readable
15:52:26 <MattChan> TOPIC: AOB?
15:52:40 <MattChan> avneeshsingh: thanks everyone, have a great day
15:52:47 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #epub-a11y
15:53:04 <avneeshsingh> rrsagent, make logs public
15:53:14 <avneeshsingh> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:53:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/14-epub-a11y-minutes.html avneeshsingh
18:20:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #epub-a11y
18:25:54 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #epub-a11y