– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

<George> Are people on zoom yet?

<AvneeshSingh> Zoom link for meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81130400256?pwd=czI2WTErKzRTMnplZlhhNDhFTUJEQT09

scribe gautier

Feedback for refactoring the principles document of User experience guide for accessibility metadata.

scribe, gautier

<AvneeshSingh> https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/UX-Guide-Metadata/draft/principles/?updated

avneesh: vitalsoucre and lia have implemnted and have feedbacks.

(epagine too, in France :) exemple : https://www.epagine.fr/ebook/9782072935459-le-cas-malaussene-ils-m-ont-menti-daniel-pennac/#targetAccess

gpellegrino: we certify and have a catalog. we started with our designer to rethink. (showing screenshot). we started in may. The idea of the designer was to present categories in boxes...
… each box has heading and icone and explaining of metadta. The guidelines changes since we started, so we updated the mockup in powerpoint at this moment. We end up with 9 boxes, one for each key information in the guidelines.

gpellegrino: feedback is it is a lot of information to display and process. We think about a more concise way. If no information is provided, the boxe disapear, this visual is the case of all metadata are present. Pre recorded audio box will certainly not appear often...
… we might see generaly 4 or 5 boxes. Our proposal is changing the order to display the information. (showing another visual with only 6 boxes starting by conformance). We also changed the text for conformance. In reading mode we included pre recorded audio information. A tooltip presents the full information...
… we merged in a new Content Detail box Navigation, Charts and (?)... We also propose simplification of some texts...
… we added a bullet point for presence of image description to be more explicit (even if already mentioned in reading mode)...
… to summarize we suggest: new order, box merging and some rewordings...

AvneeshSingh: there are some metadta that must appear if they are empty, i.e. conformance. We should go to the group and mark wich ones must be always present.

georgesK: agree, we should clarify that point. Also alt text emphasis looks good to me.

gpellegrino: I agree we should define what to do if no metadta is present.

Madeleine: hazards, very few books have hazards, always displaying no or unknown hasard is a question.

gautier: It's fine for me, most of feedbacks are similar of what we received in France
… I would like to highlight that also a French operator is implementing the guidelines and we'll have a feedback soon
… we're still waiting for users feedback, but may arrive late for this work

AvneeshSingh: it would be nice to have an exemple section in the document with this works.

georgesK: so far we have exemples of wording, not of real life implementation. So we might create a new section pointing to implementation samples.

gpellegrino: since we finalised this mockup on powerpoint we are working on a static html sample.

AvneeshSingh: we have an action item here. How should we discuss that?

gautier: what about timing problem? I would like to get the feedback from Italy on HTML implementation
… same from France
… but I know we would like to close the work on this document by the end of this year

georgesK: rick also mentionned he anticipates feedback from students and teachers filtering and searching for files. He was trying to figure out how to do that. He provided me some feedbacks on conformance section.

AvneeshSingh: let discuss the conformance. We should just say this is certfied by and let user understand if it is third party or inhouse.

gautier: for me this is related to the missing part of what is a "certification"
… I don't think we need a complex spec
… only some guidelines on what we intended by certification
… I see that a lot of certifiers will appear right before the European Accessibility Act implementation

AvneeshSingh: good point. it should be a separate document. Here, what can we do to specify the type of certicifation (inhouse or tier). My opinion is that it is complex to adress from our place, should be adress permarket. Let's fill up a github issue for that.

AvneeshSingh: back to identifying always visible groups of metadta, I also suggets we open a github issue.

georgeK: the conformance section has a different structure with an extra heading level. I wonder if it is for being more complex section and it's ok or should I find the way to flaten the structure?

AvneeshSingh: i think it's ok as the section is more complex. We can discuss in the editor's call or open an issue.

AvneeshSingh: ok, we have action items.

Any other business

georgeK: rick mentionned that we should change the introduction, even if quick and dirty so the first implementers can figure out better.

AvneeshSingh: one more action item for editor's call.