Re: More metadata questions

Thanks George, yes please.

JF

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:01 AM <kerscher@montana.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> In the Publishing Community Group, we are working on the guidelines for
> the Accessibility Summary. We meet Thursdays at 14 UTC. I think it would be
> best to review the work happening there and join that discussion.
>
>
>
> John, let me know if you want me to forward you the agenda and meeting
> information.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2022 8:41 AM
> *To:* W3C EPUB 3 Working Group <public-epub-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* More metadata questions
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> After reading through the documentation, I still have a question or two
> related to *accessibilitySummary*. Specifically, there are examples out
> there that, if not contradicting themselves, show different authoring
> patterns/examples which leaves me a wee bit uncertain what is the best
> pattern to use.
>
>
>
> Specifically, at Schema.org <https://schema.org/accessibilitySummary> (linked
> from EPUB Accessibility 1.1 <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/>) the
> example offered there is:
>
> *accessibilitySummary*
>
> "*Captions provided in English; short scenes in French have English
> subtitles instead.*"
>
>
>
> However, at the Daisy
> <http://kb.daisy.org/publishing/docs/metadata/schema.org/accessibilitySummary.html> Accessible
> Publishing Knowledge Base
> <http://kb.daisy.org/publishing/docs/metadata/schema.org/accessibilitySummary.html> the
> example offered there is:
>
> *accessibilitySummary*
>
> "*This publication conforms to the EPUB Accessibility specification at
> WCAG Level AA*."
> (JF: and specifically calling out WCAG, but without the version number).
>
>
>
> I want to presume that the W3C publication is "more up-to-date", and while
> the examples don't directly contradict themselves, there are significant
> differences in what is offered as an authoring example. I want to make the
> following presumptions, but am seeking a sanity check here (please).
>
>    - The accessibilitySummary *SHOULD
>    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119> *reference the
>    *version* of WCAG that the ePub conforms to.
>    - The accessibilitySummary *SHOULD *provide content authored *primarily
>    to be read by a human*.
>
>
>    - The accessibilitySummary *MUST NOT *use structured content (i.e.
>       avoid using lists or tables in the Summary), although correct punctuation
>       is important (seperate key concepts with a semicolon or period). The
>       assumption here is that while the metadata text is likely just string-text
>       (i.e. does not support HMTL markup), the punctuation makes the content more
>       'readable'.
>
> Based on the two examples, I am looking at essentially merging the prose
> content from those examples together, to end up with something like:
>
>
>
> *accessibilitySummary*
>
> *"**This publication conforms to the EPUB Accessibility 1.1 specification
> at WCAG 2.1 Level AA*. *This publication contains mark-up to enable
> structural navigation and compatibility with assistive technologies. Images
> in the publication are fully described. The publication supports text
> reflow and allows for reading systems to apply options for foreground and
> background colors along with other visual adjustments. Print page numbers
> are present to enable go-to-page functionality in reading systems. There
> are no accessibility hazards. The publication is screen-reader friendly."*
>
>
>
> ...and so, my final question is, does that summary look acceptable? Or am
> I overthinking this? While I am presuming NOT(*) to use structured data,
> should the URLS for EPUB Accessibility 1.1 and WCAG 2.1 specifications be
> provided in the summary?
>
> (* or am I wrong there? From a readability perspective, I believe the
> statement could be formatted to be *more* readable by using bullet-points:
>
>
>
>
> *accessibilitySummary"**This publication conforms to the EPUB
> Accessibility 1.1 specification at WCAG 2.1 Level AA*.
>
>
>    - *This publication contains mark-up to enable structural navigation
>    and compatibility with assistive technologies. *
>    - *Images in the publication are fully described. *
>    - *The publication supports text reflow and allows for reading systems
>    to apply options for foreground and background colors along with other
>    visual adjustments. *
>    - *Print page numbers are present to enable go-to-page functionality
>    in reading systems. *
>    - *There are no accessibility hazards. *
>    - *The publication is screen-reader friendly."*
>
> ...but may make it more verbose than necessary, or the formatting would be
> completely 'lost' by consuming systems. Thoughts? This bulleted list
> example *IS* more human readable...)
>
>
>
> TIA
>
>
>
> JF
>
> --
>
> *John Foliot* |
> Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
> W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"