Meeting minutes
<MURATA> +present
Further discussion on the feedback for User experience guide for displaying accessibility metadata.
https://
https://
https://
AvneeshSingh: the main issue is 136 and more issues are related: 137, 138 and 139
gpellegrino: we tought about level and hired a designer to make mockups, starting by visual approach was usefull to get what place it takes, etc. I can share drafts with you...
… on the screen you see 2 product pages, one on desktop and one on a phone screen...
… it is to understand how level organisation could fit in a web page...
… in thi scase we have a logo near the title that claims compliant with EAA... We think this is the more important information... Then we have a list of 6 tabs grouping informations as asscessibility properties, navigation, non textual content, vusal adjustements, audio and hasard. This is our second level... Certfier information is third level presented on the right of the page...
Madeleine: it looks good as a first look, and good job. My concern is that there is a lot of energy putted on the accessibility summary too.
JF: iconography is a very high level information. my concern is related to the requirements of the EAA, is it the same as 501 in US? How to render multiple requirements?
JF: we adress global market, it's difficult to localize differently. There are multiple conformances possibles, how to adrsse that?
tzviya: it's a good point, but make sure we are not overloading.
Gautier: french publishers says they need more information and reflexion time about infering EAA conformity from Epubaccessibility
<JF> +1 George
<gpellegrino> +1 George
Georges: local legislations should be the first priority. Also about use of level we maybe should just prioritize informations and says this must be displayed and this is suplementary. Just rank all metadata.
JamesY_: i agree too much information will be ignored. we have to simplify. What is important is the user...
… for legal aspect, technical standards are probably the best way to express conformity
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note there are technical standards and "legal" standards
JF: poiting to technical standards is the goal and legal requirements don't point at standards. Having 2 reporting values is needed (one for each)
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to Naomi
<JamesY__> +1 to Naomi
Naomi: many books don't pass conformance, a user may buy a book partially passing but corresponding to his needs. And the two levels thing helps with that. If there is nothing at first level, then let seen what's in second level. It adress intermediary period
Bill_Kasdorf: publisher need is can i sell this book vs user need is can i read this book?
Bill_Kasdorf: even if it's not conformant details may tell me it feets my needs.
<tzviya> +1 to JamesY__ maintaining compliance badges is going to be complicated
JamesY_: technical and legal changes everytime and may not change in the same directeion. How do we maintain that in time?
JF: 508 explicitly point to WCAG2.0, not 2.1 or 2.2. If any futur WCAG is not compatible with 2.0 it's regulaor problem, not our.
gpellegrino: what we invision here is similar to other european legislation (exemple is products with CE mark).
<gpellegrino> +1 to Avneesh to how to interpret metadata
<Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to Avneesh
@AvneeshSingh: there are so many users over the world and so many needs. When we started this document we had 22 objectives : provide a guidance to interpret and display machine readble information and how to prioritize the information needed? We should mainly focus on prioritization, then find labels and at the end build exemples.
GeorgeK: it clearly needs to redivise and look at the language proposed (screen reader friendly don't work in french), i wonder if we could have a localization table in our recomandation.
@AvneeshSingh: editors of the document willl meet to start the writing.
Next steps for accessibility summary guide.
Gautier: I enlist as editor.
GeorgeK: i went thru the document and fixed everything. from my perspective it's done. I expect that when refactoring principles and techniques this will trigger more changes needs to the accessibility Summary.
Should we have meeting on December 22?
@all: skip it, meet next year
so 12th of january