Re: More metadata questions

Hi John

I think we can also file issue regarding the questions then we will not
forget document it. The spec on github is here
https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/blob/main/epub33/a11y/index.html so we
can file issue under that github repo (
https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/). Please let us know if need help
creating github issue.

George and some of PCG members are also working on accessibilitySummary as
a sub-taskforce I think this could be very useful input. In terms of wcag
version it is covered here
https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/#example-a-basic-conformance-statement
but I also feel how to describe it as human readable format in
accessibilitySummary could be a bit more clear. I look forward to further
discussion in tmr meeting or the accessibilitySummary sub-TF meetings.

Cheers,
Zheng


On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Greetings All,
>
> After George's response to my question yesterday, I also received a
> meeting notice for this Thursday's call, where one of the topics is
> "Accessibility Summary Authoring Guidelines - Draft Community Group Report
> 24 May 2022". I hope to attend that call, but would also like to ensure my
> questions are documented.
>
> I have done a perfunctory review of that document, and note that 2 of my
> questions from yesterday remain vaguely defined. Specifically:
>
> 1) Should the accessibilitySummary reference the *version* of WCAG being
> used? In the 2 examples provided in that note, the first example DOES
> reference WCAG 2.0:
>
>  (" The publication meets WCAG 2.0 Level AA.")
>
> ...however, the second example does not:
>
> ("... and it also meets the Web AccessibilityContent Guidelines (WCAG) at
> the double "AA" level.")
> [JF please note the typo - requires a space between Accessibility and
> Content.]
>
>
> Could this question be clarified and better specified in the document (I
> would personally recommend that it DOES reference the version number, but
> normative guidance one way or the other would be appreciated).
>
>
> 2) "Structured" summaries - in my initial email I posed the question,
> 'could the summary be formatted as structured content?' - i.e. in my
> example I offered a summary that contained a number of bullet points. Would
> that be acceptable, or would that be discouraged (or worse, non-conformant)?
>
> EXAMPLE:
>
> 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."*
>
>
> Might I request that these questions be answered in the emergent document?
> Additionally, what is the intended publishing track for this document -
> will it end up being an ePub WG Note? Other status?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> 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"
>