– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

Further discussion on the feedback for User experience guide for displaying accessibility metadata.

<AvneeshSingh> https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/issues/136

AvneeshSingh: the issue tracker contains the history - suggested to have metadata at two levels - one is information people need to know and other is more detailed

gpellegrino: two levels is fine but when we try to arrange them we find information is missed - e.g. saying screen reader friendly but not whether helpful for low vision or other users

<gpellegrino> https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/issues/139

gpellegrino: we tried to group the metadata to give users information in the categories in the issue
… general information is general bibliogrpaphic information, format, drm, etc.
… second category is about navigation - toc, page list, reading order, etc.
… some of these can be calculated by the conformance statement - by meeting wcag
… third category is whether text content is available for non-text content
… can you change the colour contrast, fonts, etc. - important for dyslexic readers
… fourth level is audio like media overlays
… then there is accessibility conformance and all the other metadata

Gautier: we need to consider that there are two types of online service that will use this information - special access libraries and also more general bookshelves - there is already a lot of information in bookshelves so can't have too much more
… need option if you don't have enough space to display a lot of metadata - you need to display the level 1 metadata in this case
… have to let platforms know what is the minimum expected when they can't display everything

AvneeshSingh: yes, need to consider if people with go through a long list

Hadrien: in our case we have implemented the accessibility metadata in aldiko and in portals - our approach has been to use a single section to group the metadata together - grouping in subsections likely won't help with readability - we've selected a subset of information that we think are the most important
… for everything else, we group them in a separate element for people who are interested in going beyond - same for certification information - important to know wcag info but not who checked the book, etc.
… balancing act between making enough information available without making it unreadable and unhelpful for readers

gpellegrino: agree that we need to identify what is the most important information - by grouping by categories we get the same result but it is more concise - only nine total for grouping into short sentences to describe functionality

AvneeshSingh: your proposal needs elaborating to also propose what goes into each level

JF: I'm concerned this is about how to present the data rather than mandating what information has to be available - some users may want info one way and others another, they have their own preferences - in wcag we could not tell the browsers what they have to do, and concern we're just telling RSes what to do - level 1 and 2 map to metadata that must be present
… our job is to provide the information and their job is to present it however they need - we should only focus on what metadata must be specified

AvneeshSingh: this is the publishing cg so it is not exclusively epub context - epub defines the requirements and recommendations - we are providing suggestions on how to transform the metadata in the publications into information for users

JF: there is a suggestion for presenting icons - excellent best practice, but are we saying they must do this

AvneeshSingh: no, this is only a guideline document for retailers - they are not clear what to do with the information they find - VitalSource, for example, started by dumping the raw metadata

JF: some of these recommendations will be useful for some users but not for all - if the goal is only to provide guidance then we should show examples - there may be more than one way of rendering this information

AvneeshSingh: yes, there could be multiple suggestions depending on the expected users - expect that Charles will be a liaison with the personalization TF

JF: not really the focus of that group - helping users with pictograms - are we saying that we want a standardized set of icons? - many ways of rendering controls that allows them to retain the same information - e.g. users know a triangle is a start button
… presentation is going to be a schematic choice - what we propose may not work with branding of vendors
… I understand the need and desire but we are constrained in what we can mandate people do

AvneeshSingh: these are only meant as suggestions - vendors do not have to follow it exactly
… when we discuss this retailers they are saying that these are important guidelines they need

AvneeshSingh: at level one we need to know format, drm, reflowable or fxl

gpellegrino: for this metadata since they are not only accessibility perhaps they should not be in the accessibility section but elsewhere in the metadata

<Gautier> yes

<Hadrien> +1

AvneeshSingh: one issue from Charles is that he wants the certification information, not just the conformance statement - certifier info, badges, etc.

gpellegrino: my personal view, not LIA, is that it is a tricky thing about who certified

Gautier: I agree it is a difficult issue - in France I don't think publishers will go into a certification process so don't want this reported
… there is a lot of other information that comes when reporting certifiers - we only use conforms to as it is more easily understood - we will give a link to the report and you can find the certifier information that way

<JF> @gpellegrino is pointing out my concern in reality

Gautier: this works for Thorium but it may not work for others - Kobo will not add a link to external pages for security reasons and don't want users leaving their site
… some publishers said they could put the link into the content of the book so that you can reach it from there

<JF> +1 to Avneesh... this becomes a slippery slope

AvneeshSingh: seems like this could lead to us having to standardize the reports

Hadrien: geography definitely has an impact - find inconsistencies in how information is expressed - people use the EPUB spec as their accessibility report - makes it hard to have this as top-level information

MiiaK: closed systems are an interesting problem that also affects libraries

AvneeshSingh: adding links sounds like a problem for level 1 - we should report this back to the tracker
… having the conformance statement is useful, but keep the details for a lower level

<Hadrien> +1

<Gautier> +1

AvneeshSingh: need to discuss how to express the conformance

<AvneeshSingh> https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/issues/138

Gautier: when we've been working on prototypes and in workshops, most of the actors wanted yes or no option - want a way to say we are or are not accessible
… people in the publishing industry want conformity with the EAA but don't want complex info - users may get used to understanding the EPUB and WCAG statement but won't initially understand - maybe at the second level there should be a better description that is more human readable
… also should say when there is no conformance declared - don't display nothing when this is the case
… if there is an exception to the EAA then you need to say that - e.g., because a small publisher

AvneeshSingh: recap: we need to get retailers to state that the conformance is not declared and also have an explainer of what EPUB Accessiblity and WCAG conformance means

gpellegrino: technical names of the specifications are confusing - difficult to achieve, but we need an explanation of what they mean

AvneeshSingh: will be difficult to explain this briefly

<JF> more importantly, is it *our* responsibility to teach everyone the differences?

AvneeshSingh: how do we find the explanation?

gpellegrino: another approach that we have proposed is to identify if a title is line with the requirements of the EAA - but this is a localized approach for Europe

AvneeshSingh: it is an interesting topic - local areas may have different names and acts they have to conform to - should we include the local name?

gpellegrino: we don't want another conformance statement but to calculate whether the title is in line with these other acts from the existing statement

JF: concerned we're providing info to the end user, and prioritizing, but localization and translation will affect what to display - when you get down to this kind of custom-like metadata we can't tell all publishers/vendors to include/use this information
… once we get too locked down into how to present the info we're going to get pushback from vendors

AvneeshSingh: one thing we have learned in gathering the feedback is that there needs to be flexibility - it looks like strict guidance right now but these are intended to be adapted

Any other business.