Meeting minutes
Further update to principles document of User experience guide for accessibility metadata.
<AvneeshSingh> https://
AvneeshSingh: a lot of work has been done on editing.
Gregorio: gave and update on the overview.
<Bill_Kasdorf_> Zoom is not connecting me, says there's another meeting in progress.
rickj: in education marketspace, it may not be the student but the instructor will choose the book.
<Madeleine> +1
AvneeshSingh: AccessibilitySummary talks about the 1.0 vs. the 1.1 Should we move this down to the AccessibilitySummary section instead of the overview?
Gregorio: ingesting metadata from machine readable is important and the accessibilitySummary isn't as it was intended like before.
AvneeshSingh: we should add some more info in the AccessibilitySummary section.
… note in the Key information when there is no a11y metadata provided, there are 3 main groups where no information is provided. Should we just mention this in these specific sections where no metadata is provided.
<rickj> +1
Gregorio: +1 to remove the general note and add this info to each specific section.
George: I am worried when no metadata is provided.
… I agree modify the blanket statement.
AvneeshSingh: we can update the statement.
rickj: for no a11y provided, are we looking for a standardized statement?
<rickj> what we say if no metadata is provided: The publisher of this title has not provided any details on the accessibility features that may be included. You should contact them for more information.
AvneeshSingh: the implementors should inform users that the publisher hasn't provided that metadata.
… great we will discuss in the editors call.
rickj: 3.2 pre-recorded audio.
AvneeshSingh: lets hold that for now
Gregorio: it is required in the EAA metadata must be displayed. the 3 key information must be provided,and each one that no a11y metadata provided. visual Adjustments: No information is provided, Conformance, : no Information is provided. etc. not just one statement.
Madeleine: I am on board with modifying it, I think its still important to have some general statement like "If no metadata is provided in those 3 key sections." but also point it out in each section.
rickj: What should we say: 1. no metadata is provided, but we know that they meet the minimum requirements because we will reject that book should we infer this . we may get matadata from the book or ONIX or out-of-band if there is conflict between them or just present all of it to the user and let them decide.
AvneeshSingh: lets open an issue in regards to your second point where there is conflict between multiple metadata sources.
Bill_Kasdorf_: if a book is in your system, the book has accessible navigation. What about have a blanket statement for your system, that Navigation is provided as a requirement.
rickj: here is what publisher claims, and this is what our reading system claims.
AvneeshSingh: this document only discusses whats in the publication, and if that metadata is not provided, you can use the information we give you, but you can adjust this with saying that the publisher hasn't claimed this but we have enough information that xyz should be accessible, or something to that effect.
<Madeleine> +1 to Avneesh
AvneeshSingh: implementation details can be handled by the implementors and we can adjust our statements with future versions.
Naomi: Hazards you can tell no audio/video is not in the book. the reading system / not from the publisher.
George: Internet archive, has 1 entry in the nav doc, I wouldn't call that Navigation provided, thats just the minimum. how to tell real navigation. we haven't emphasized we do plan on having standardized statements but yet to be done, there will be strings which can be translated.
Gregorio: inferred metadata is possible, so we should open an issue to better discuss this. maybe a Note in our document.
rickj: re translation, if we can finalize those phrases by early Jan, we translate into 37 languages and can provide it back to you. We will take the phrases and translate them.
rickj: Pre-recorded Audio, RS with Read-Aloud, is there a place for this here. is available to the users
Madeleine: that is the Reading System vs. the book. not the features of the Reading System.
George: a Distributor that has that function in their Reading system could add that metadata to the a11y metadata?
Madeleine: supports non-visual reading, in addition, reading tool will support synchronized reading.
Gregorio, non-visual reading, is where that would go. We don't have metadata for text to speech.
<rickj> +1 to those answers
AvneeshSingh: Read Aloud, the accessModeSufficient = "textual" is what we need here. Available to Screen Readers, Braille and Text to Speech Read aloud.
Madeleine: the pre-recorded audio doesn't say pre-recorded vs. synthesized speech.
George: same as human narrated. human vs. pre-recorded.
Madeleine: last paragraph should say pre-recorded has less errors.
George: will we distinguished between TTS and Human Narrated. we will remove the statement about errors.
George: I have seen human narrated with pronunciation errors.
Chris_EDI: ONIX file human / synchronized TTS is permitted,
George: Conformance Section - first to be written, it differs from the other section as a result. Added that certifiedBy is always present, as well as the certifier's credentials. impossible to figure out 3rd party vs. self certified. so these two items users can figure out who certified it and any credentials they may have.
rickj: I think its a great rewrite.
George: Should this section follow the same model as the other sections where you start out with a descriptive statement example vs. a compact statement example.
… descriptive, WCAG 2.1 AA level, compact statement would be "meets minimum accessibility standards."
… this would allow the implementor to choose if they want the descriptive vs. the compact. now certifier and credentials would be the same no difference between compact vs. descriptive.
Madeleine: I am concerned about the compact statement regarding timeliness
George: that would be still available in the detailed conformance information. Compact statement will require this additional information.
rickj: where are you pulling the date when the certification takes place
Charles: this is a new "refines" the certifiedBy metadata
<rickj> found the date specifics at https://
George: detailed conformance information, we can add the compact with no description statements but each of these recommend a section detailed conformance information should be there. leave it up to the implementors. additional details. have the date, and link to the certifiers report if present.
Gregorio: could be a solution, we can decide the naming.
George: statement "detailed conformance Information" 3.7.2 in the spec. we could do compact statement, meet accepted conformance, certifier, credential, and in the detailed section could have the additional conformance details have that other information like the real conformance statement, certifier report / date certified etc can go there.
George: I will do a PR and have the editors review it.
George: Action to add issue about conflicts of metadata, and inferring a11y metadata, and an issue about adding localization statements. Rick will do a PR the General overview of instructors in education.
rickj: In each of the a11y section we have the descriptive / compact, the links will how to come to these conclusions, what is the timing on techniques?
Gregorio: I agree, and with Chris from Editor will help with the ONIX part, I think we are near to start.
Chris_EDI: Happy to help with the ONIX part and to look at the mapping. We are looking at a feedback loop when there are inconsistencies of metadata. this is a project we are looking at.
Madeleine: Speaking of the crosswalk, I found one more thing, and then we can get that republished. then we should ask Chris to ensure we haven't missed anything.
<Madeleine> w3c/
Chris_EDI: Yes, I did a mapping, and look at the comments we can look at it together
Any other business.
Charles: Yes please check and update this issue, I will make the changes to the table then all can review once complete.
AvneeshSingh: Next call, we can't do Nov. 9th due to DAISY meetings. We will look into meeting end of Nov.
… work async for now drive via github.
… Nov 30th would be the next meeting I will send out the invite.
Gregorio, can the editors meet next Monday and continue regularly.
AvneeshSingh: I will send out the invite for editors.