Meeting minutes
Updates to the Principles and techniques documents.
<AvneeshSingh> Principles: https://
George: I made a PR for the Legal consideration new section
… I had some comments from editors and I'm waiting for other feedback
… I have a question about this section, do we want to say something about the jurisdiction
gpellegrino: I don't think it's only a matter of jurisdiction
… it's also about end user information, supply chain information
… I think we shouldn't be strict
George: is there any metadata where the metadata the publisher can tell if the metadata has to be displayed or not
… ?
gpellegrino: no way to target the audience of a specific metadata
George: I can add information about the supply chain
AvneeshSingh: I see another use case from national agencies that have to use this information in their work of enforcement
Hadrien: I've already heard organization that are basing their procurement of ebooks based on accessibility and accessibility metadata
… like in education and public libraries, more and more organizations are enforcing it
gautierchomel: I think publishers we'll use the guidelines to decide of what to put in their metadata for having something displayed
… in our guidelines we have always focused on readers and information that are meaningful for them
… I think we can get consensus in a generic phrase to put
gpellegrino: We already have in the guidelines indications for different type of implementations (B2C, B2B) and both user-friendly and detailed information (like for Conformance)
George: ok, what may we put if the publisher do not provide any metadata, but only the exception one?
gautierchomel: a generic phrase that say that the title is not compelled to be accessible
Hadrien: I think that we need to have a broader view, not only B2C
… because no one else will work on other guidelines
… as a distributor operating in Europe I would ask the publisher title-by-title if they're compliant with the EAA
Simon_Mellins: I think it's crucial that the user knows if a title is exempted
… but also we should say that the publisher "claims" to be excempted
… because it has to be proven
… another important thing would be the publisher contact information, for leaving the user the possibility to contact the publisher
George: about the claim: at the end every metadata is a claim from the publisher, so I removed "claim" from the statements
… and added a section telling that the whole section of metadata is about claims
… and we are suggesting to call the whole section in the UI the "accessibility claims" or "accessibility declaration"
Simon_Mellins: is it only VitalSource that will do that?
George: we are suggesting for all implementers to call that section in the UI "accessibility claims"
George: if as a publisher I put the exception metadata, do I want to display something?
gautierchomel: My proposal is that any exception metadata trigger one common sentence
… like "this ebook is excempted..."
<Simon_Mellins> ... rather than indicating which type of exception is being claimed
gautierchomel: then we're making a guidelines, so every implementer can decide what to display
… or not display
Hadrien: I think that the complex thing about this conversation is that publishers don't have control on what metadata will be displayed
… I think that having a simple sentence is important
… at the same time I think that micro-enterprise is really different from disporpotionated burden
… because in the first case you don't have do prove it, in the second you need to make calculations
AvneeshSingh: I suggest to make a generic statement, and then link to issuue tracker
gpellegrino: I think that then the part of the sentence about what publishers want is misleading
Simon_Mellins: I think publishers may not want to display this information, at the same time we should be on the readers side, and for them having this information may be important
George: do we want to suggest to contact the publisher
may we suggest to use the accessibility summary to give publisher contacts?
gpellegrino: It seems a little bit misleading to give direction to publishers in this guidelines, seems they are not the target audience
gautierchomel: I think that don't listening publishers' voice is not a good thing for this guidelines
George: do we want to open a new issue and link to the new issue?
gautierchomel: I think having a new issue is good, since now we have reached consensus and we have a new discussion
George: I'll do it
gpellegrino: no updates on the ONIX side of techniqes
George: no updated on the EPUB metadata side
Preparing for first public working draft.
George: I think we'll then have to make sections on both techniques for Legal considerations
AvneeshSingh: we are nearly ready to publish the first public working draft
… the scope is to present it to the industry and get feedback
… do you think we're missing something before publish the draft?
George: the only question I have is about sample implementation
… maybe we need to have the draft published before having the implementations
gautierchomel: we have an implementation in French
… but maybe it's better to wait
AvneeshSingh: yes, I think we can wait and than update the draft
gautierchomel: maybe is better to have a separate page for list of implementations
AvneeshSingh: we made this section for giving the reader different type of implementations of there guidelines
… with different flavours
gautierchomel: my concern is if we have too many implementations
gpellegrino: I think we have an issue for listing all the implementers, we can reference it from the Implementation section
AvneeshSingh: when will we be ready to publish the first draft?
gpellegrino: if we're in a rush, we can publish it by the end of the next week
George: I will tell BISG, for their webinar
AvneeshSingh: maybe we can ask people from the group to give feedback on specific sections of the document
George: we can ask Matt to read it
AvneeshSingh: do we need another call two weeks from now?
George: I don't think a lot of people will partecipate