W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Meta Data

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 15:03:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDY9_u-8==-RnnsL13iaGEvJ4W7sxZ_=tyZb-h_YBe888A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
I've started the agree upon wording for the Accessibility Metadata Success
Criteria in Issue #82

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/82

It would be a AAA requirement with SC language such as this.

=Accessibility Metadata=
Accessibility Metadata is provided which describes the accessibility
characteristics of the content using an openly published vocabulary. At a
minimum this is a machine readable description either on the page or
referenced from the set of pages to which it applies. A human readable
summary may also be provided.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:

> Hi Tzviya,
>
> To me, the first priority for having a success criterion about metadata is
> to ensure it fits with the conformance claim section in WCAG 2.0 right now.
> If the through metadata you can't express what WCAG itself recommends doing
> with a conformance claim, then that seems too limited to me.
>
> For reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims
>
> Further more, we can't talk about conformance of sites. WCAG conformance
> can only be claimed at a page level. At most a claim can be made that all
> pages on a website are conforming. Practically, for any website larger then
> a few pages such a claim is hard to make.
>
> A second part to consider is how the WCAG Evaluation Methodology fits into
> this. It does actually have tools to report on the accessibility of
> websites as a whole (these are not conformance claims though). You can find
> WCAG-EM Here: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/
>
> Lastly, regarding Accessibility Conformance Testing Taskforce (ACT). It is
> currently hard to speculate exactly what the outcome of this will look
> like, but there are a few things we can reasonably assume today. A critical
> component to why ACT is happening is that we want to be explicit about how
> accessibility results are gathered. For the same reason you mention
> indicating who certified something. Not all WCAG claims are equal. ACT
> means to make the test procedures used for WCAG testing explicit.
>
>
> I hope this sets a few things up for the discussion soon. I think there is
> a whole lot of things to work through if we want to be able to get a
> success criterion in, but I'm very excited to see if we can make this work!
>
> Regards
>
> Wilco
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <
> tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>
>> The properties that we have been working on are available in two places.
>> There are some terms were written a few years ago (and derive from the IMS
>> Global Access for All Project). These are linked to from
>> https://schema.org/accessibilityFeature. The wiki details information at
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility.
>>
>>
>>
>> The newer, pending terms are available at:
>>
>> http://pending.schema.org/.
>>
>> http://pending.schema.org/accessMode
>>
>> http://pending.schema.org/accessModeSufficient
>>
>> http://pending.schema.org/accessibilitySummary
>>
>>
>>
>> If I’m understanding your proposal correctly, you would like to see a new
>> property called AccessibilityConformance, with predefined values that align
>> with WCAG levels. That sounds like a great idea, but we would have to go
>> through the schema.org extensions process [1]. That is how we reached
>> all of the other properties. We have also talked about including
>> information about conformance and/or certification. We thought it would be
>> helpful to include not just what the site conforms to but who certifies
>> that the site is conformant. There are lots of sites that claim to be WCAG
>> AA-compliant, but that is a very broad statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, if there is language on the wiki that you would like to edit so that
>> we reflect more about WCAG, we can do that. We cannot add a property at
>> this stage. We are happy to work on adding more accessibility properties in
>> the future. The schema.org CG seemed really interested in growing this,
>> not just from a WCAG perspective but also expanding scope to include
>> information such as whether physical locations include wheelchair ramps.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tzviya
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://schema.org/docs/extension.html
>>
>>
>>
>> *Tzviya Siegman*
>>
>> Information Standards Lead
>>
>> Wiley
>>
>> 201-748-6884 <(201)%20748-6884>
>>
>> tsiegman@wiley.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:52 PM
>> *To:* Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken
>> *Cc:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; Matt Garrish; George Kerscher; Wilco
>> Fiers; WCAG; Charles LaPierre; Avneesh Singh
>> *Subject:* Re: Meta Data
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tzviya
>>
>>
>>
>> The WIKI seems to be documenting the Schema.org accessibility properties,
>> which is helpful but I'm not sure what I could recommend for that page
>> given that it just documents what's in the standard, through an
>> accessibility lens. Maybe I'm missing something.
>>
>>
>>
>> My proposal is to introduce a simply way to report conformance through
>> meta data, and the properties I proposed where because I didn't see
>> anything on Screma.org that did that.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <
>> tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the input.
>>
>>
>>
>> Proposing new Properties and their values to schema.org is not quite the
>> same as making editorial changes to the wiki. It took months of work for
>> the existing properties to be approved by the schema.org CG. These
>> proposals look great, but they would need to be proposed to the committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> The changes that we can make at this point are to the language in
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility. There is no explicit
>> mention of WCAG anywhere on this site. Would you recommend mentioning WCAG
>> on this site? Can you provide specific language?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tzviya
>>
>>
>>
>> *Tzviya Siegman*
>>
>> Information Standards Lead
>>
>> Wiley
>>
>> 201-748-6884
>>
>> tsiegman@wiley.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:12 PM
>> *To:* 'David MacDonald'; 'Matt Garrish'; 'George Kerscher'; Siegman,
>> Tzviya - Hoboken; 'Wilco Fiers'
>> *Cc:* 'WCAG'; 'Charles LaPierre'; 'Avneesh Singh'
>> *Subject:* RE: Meta Data
>>
>>
>>
>> Changing Wilco’s email to his Deque one (wilco.fiers@deque.com )
>>
>>
>>
>> ​​​​​
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ** katie **
>>
>>
>>
>> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
>> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
>> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
>> <703-371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca
>> <david100@sympatico.ca>]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:09 PM
>> *To:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <
>> w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>;
>> Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>
>> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
>> ryladog@gmail.com>; Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh
>> Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Meta Data
>>
>>
>>
>> On the call today it was decided to move forward with a new AAA for
>> MetaData from DPUB perhaps something simple like
>>
>>
>>
>> SC XXXX Metatdata: Metadata is provided which describes the accessibility
>> characteristics of the content
>>
>>
>>
>> The understanding could reference Schema.org
>>
>>
>>
>> It was also requested by dPUB for us to propose any new Meta Data terms
>> for Scema.org we'd like to see. I suggest the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> (1) The WCAG level of conformance claimed
>>
>> (2) The technology relied upon for conformance
>>
>>
>>
>> For the first property I could see something like this:
>>
>>
>>
>> accessibilityConformance:
>>
>>
>>
>> with the following values for each of the WCAG 2 and 2.1 Levels and more
>> could be added if further standards show up.
>>
>>
>>
>> levelWCAG2-A
>>
>> levelWCAG2-AA
>>
>> levelWCAG2-AAA
>>
>> levelWCAG2v1-A
>>
>> levelWCAG2v1-AA
>>
>> levelWCAG2v1-AAA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ​I'm not sure how to do the 2nd. Technology relied upon​, because i'd
>> hate to limit the values.  Maybe just start with the conformance level.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Michael Pluke <
>> Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David
>>
>>
>>
>> I recall that a “set of software programs” was something that few of us
>> have experienced although one member of the Task Force assured us that he
>> had spotted one “in the wild”. I couldn’t recall whether we agreed that a
>> set of documents was similarly rare (although I think that, with the very
>> tight conditions, it probably is).
>>
>>
>>
>> I do recall that one of the arguments for not including these success
>> criteria for documents was the concern that a large amount of time could be
>> spent by people evaluating to the standard to search through what could be
>> large ICT systems trying to identify if there were any sets of software –
>> only to get a negative answer in almost all cases. I also recall that a
>> problem could be that something that did meet the set of documents at one
>> point might no longer be a set of documents if updates to part of the set
>> were made.
>>
>>
>>
>> Overall, the conclusion were that:
>>
>>
>>
>> -          including the interpretation of these success criteria in the
>> form that they were written was unlikely to lead to an improvement in
>> accessibility for the vast majority of ICT procurements (in the same way
>> that they are for Web pages);
>>
>> -          much time could be wasted in all ICT procurements trying to
>> identify if any of these rare sets of documents existed.
>>
>>
>>
>> This resulted in the decision not to include them (in their current
>> form). I’m not sure that the case is strong enough to merit revisiting that
>> conclusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>> *Sent:* 23 November 2016 16:55
>> *To:* Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
>> *Cc:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
>> Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <
>> w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>;
>> George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>; Charles LaPierre <
>> Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: DPUB Set of Web Pages
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> It might be worth it to loop the member of your team who felt it
>> necessary for the EU to diverge from the WCAG2ICT on those specific
>> issues... we did agree on the WCG2ICT that a "set of documents" would not
>> be common in the document world, but it did work when applied to documents,
>> which facilitated consensus on the WCAG2ICT for the entire adoption of WCAG
>> to Software and documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> I often find in standards, as you may have experienced, that sometimes
>> just sitting down and talking together helps us unify and make stronger
>> global standards that are not splintered. I'd be keen to sit down with your
>> technician and see if we can come together.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Michael Pluke <
>> Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> I certainly wouldn’t recommend a solution that ignores those
>> requirements. As I said, I wish you luck in getting a good solution to
>> enable you to include them. If you succeed I, for one, would push to have
>> this solution incorporated in any future update of EN 301 549!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 23 November 2016 16:06
>> *To:* 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> *Cc:* 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL' <
>> ryladog@gmail.com>; 'Wilco Fiers' <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; 'Siegman,
>> Tzviya - Hoboken' <tsiegman@wiley.com>; 'George Kerscher' <
>> kerscher@montana.com>; 'Charles LaPierre' <Charlesl@benetech.org>;
>> 'Avneesh Singh' <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* RE: DPUB Set of Web Pages
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is interesting, but I'm not sure how to respond. As we work to
>> a web publication definition, there are challenges we'll need to address,
>> but I can't see how we could develop a specification that ignores wcag
>> requirements. You absolutely have to have multiple ways to access the pages
>> of a publication, for example. In EPUB, the reading system facilitates
>> seamless navigation from document to document through the spine (metadata
>> about the order). There is also a required table of contents, and
>> publications often have other forms of navigation, like indexes, access to
>> static page break locations, search functionality through the reading
>> system, etc. I'm fully expecting that we won't compromise anywhere, but
>> details of the pitfalls you encountered would be helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca
>> <david100@sympatico.ca>]
>> *Sent:* November 23, 2016 10:52 AM
>> *To:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
>> ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman,
>> Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; George Kerscher <
>> kerscher@montana.com>; Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh
>> Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: DPUB Set of Web Pages
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> >was developed the consensus opinion was that applying 2.4.1, 2.4.5,
>> 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 to documents using the “set of documents” definition did
>> not capture the key accessibility needs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you explain this further? I was an active member of the WCAG2ICT TF
>> with you on all of those calls for a year.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:32 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> I think including a epub example in a set of web pages wouldn't preclude
>> a more specific definition of epub at a later time, or even in a later
>> version of WCAG ... on the other hand, maybe we could introduce a new term
>> in 2.1 if we have it very soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> It just seems to me that "a set of web pages" and inherent in that the
>> "web page definition" of the base URL and associated assets, is a perfect
>> short term definition that would accomplish what George mentioned about
>> working epub into the web page framework so that the WCAG Success Criteria
>> can explicitly apply to epub.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although just the fact that they sit at a URL already allows WCAG Success
>> Criteria to apply to epub, and WCAG2ICT applies when its offline.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, David, this is a good start. I'd just suggest that we keep any
>> definition of a web publication agnostic to specific formats.
>>
>>
>>
>> As Tzviya mentioned on the call, the DPUB group will be taking up the
>> issues from yesterday on their next call, so we'll have more to say about
>> example wording and metadata after we can involve the full group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>> *Sent:* November 22, 2016 3:26 PM
>> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
>> ryladog@gmail.com>; Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>; Siegman,
>> Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; George Kerscher <
>> kerscher@montana.com>; markus.gylling@idpf.org; matt.garrish@bell.net;
>> Charles LaPierre <Charlesl@benetech.org>; Avneesh Saxena <
>> Avneesh.s@gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* DPUB Set of Web Pages
>>
>>
>>
>> Note: DPUB members, this is my personal opinion, not speaking for WG
>>
>>
>>
>> Today we discussed ways that we could role a DPUB package into our
>> definition of web page.
>>
>>
>>
>> DPUB packages have more than one URL, and as such cannot be considered
>> under our current definition as a web page. However, we have a useful
>> definition in WCAG which lends itself ideally to a DPUB document. That is a
>> "Set of Web Pages"
>>
>>
>>
>> *set of Web pages*
>>
>> collection of Web pages <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef> that
>> share a common purpose and that are created by the same author, group or
>> organization
>>
>> *Note: *Different language versions would be considered different sets
>> of Web pages.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef
>>
>>
>>
>> We could add something like this to the definition
>>
>>
>>
>> "Example: An epub publication has a table of contents and 25 separate
>> URLs representing each chapter of a digital book."
>>
>>
>>
>> If the DPUB team has Success Criteria they would like to propose for
>> WCAG, for DEC 1st, I suggest they submit them using this definition. For
>> instance, if they want ways to link from a TOC to another chapter of the
>> document and back, they could propose something like:
>>
>>
>>
>>        "Every link from a Table of Contents in a set of web pages has a
>> corresponding link back to the Table of Contents"
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course this SC  is just off the top of my head but it gives an idea of
>> how this type of SC could be written with this language.
>>
>>
>>
>> =============
>>
>> Also we discussed meta data as a means of reporting conformance. WCAG 2
>> has a discussion of meta data in Appendix C which may be useful.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/appendixC.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Wilco Fiers*
> Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG
>

deque_logo_180p.gif
(image/gif attachment: deque_logo_180p.gif)

Received on Monday, 5 December 2016 20:04:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC