Re: More metadata questions

Hello John and all,

For example, the 'examples' at Schema.org<https://schema.org/accessibilitySummary> for accessibilitySummary have no indication or suggestion of referencing WCAG - with or without a version number. Is that the 'answer' then? To not reference WCAG in the accessibilitySummary statement?

It is up to the author to decide what they want to say in this human readable accessibilitySummary, which is why we are trying to form some “best practices / guidelines” around what “could/should” be included.

As for the definition of what this piece of metadata is from schema.org<http://schema.org> it says the following:

A human-readable summary of specific accessibility features or deficiencies, consistent with the other accessibility metadata but expressing subtleties such as "short descriptions are present but long descriptions will be needed for non-visual users" or "short descriptions are present and no long descriptions are needed."

One could argue that if there is already a conformsTo statement that specifies the WCAG version and A/AA/AAA level obtained there is no reason to include this in the accessibilitySummary, but again that also implies that a person who reads this accessibilitySummary also has access to this machine readable conformsTo piece of metadata.

Thanks
Charles
EOM

Charles LaPierre
Principal, Accessibility Standards, and Technical Lead, Global Certified Accessible
Benetech
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y



On May 25, 2022, at 10:54 AM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca<mailto:john@foliot.ca>> wrote:

Hi Zheng,

> In terms of wcag version it is covered here https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/#example-a-basic-conformance-statement


Sure, but that is for dcterms:conformsTo - however I am asking about accssibilitySummary which is a different metadata value string. In the 2 existing examples<https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/drafts/schema-a11y-summary/#examples> in the draft Community Group document, one references the version number, the other does not.

My concern is over the inconsistency in the examples in that draft document, as well as the lack of clarity around the topic in general - specifically should the accessibilitySummary explicitly reference which version of WCAG the book is striving to conform to? That *should* be a yes-or-no question, but today the current answer is that the spec doesn't say, and even within this email thread nobody has yet provided a definitive response.

I am aware of the effort that George and the Community Group have applied here, and my comments are not "complaints", they are candid observations hopefully provided as constructive feedback for that document, and ePub documentation in general.

> 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/).

Happy to file a github issue (or issues) as required, however the current comments are related to  https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/drafts/schema-a11y-summary/ and not https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/blob/main/epub33/a11y/index.html . This is also another of my lower-level concerns: information scatter. Between the Working Group, the Community Group, Daisy Consortium, IDPF/Schema.org<http://Schema.org>... finding the single source of truth has become increasingly complicated, and when all of those different sources are all saying slightly different things, what is the uninitiated to do?

(For example, the 'examples' at Schema.org<https://schema.org/accessibilitySummary> for accessibilitySummary have no indication or suggestion of referencing WCAG - with or without a version number. Is that the 'answer' then? To not reference WCAG in the accessibilitySummary statement? Or should I look at the examples from the latest draft from the Community Group - the two examples that do not even support each other? I hope you can appreciate the confusion here.)

JF

On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:20 AM Zheng Xu <zxu@wysebee.com<mailto:zxu@wysebee.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:john@foliot.ca>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 8:41 AM
To: W3C EPUB 3 Working Group <public-epub-wg@w3.org<mailto: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"


--
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"