Meeting minutes
<AvneeshSingh>EPUB/schema.org metadata for publisher contact.
Welcome and meeting schedule.
AvneeshSingh:We will be meeting 1st and 3rd Thursdays of each month. May 1 was holiday in some parts of the world and 15 is Global Accessibility Day. Then on June 5 we have DAISY board meeting and some of us will not be available for the meeting on that day. So, what is our availability on May 15, we have a possibility of moving the 15th meeting on 29th since May has 5 Thursdays.
gpellegrino: We have the book publishing fair. to the week after or 29 will work.
Charles: Benetech also has a GAAD day at this time on the 15. May 29 will work.
AvneeshSingh: Decided we will have next meeting on May 29th. I will nnounce on PMWG mailing list.
EPUB/schema.org metadata for publisher contact.
AvneeshSingh: We have metadata for publishers contact in ONIX, but this field is not there in internal metadata i.e. neither in EPUB nor in schema.org metadata. can we have a schema.org vocabulary or EPUB metadata for this?
<AvneeshSingh> w3c/
gpellegrino: Rick J presented some info on this.
… ONIX there are 3 different ways publish contact, trusted inter mediator, and contact of certifier who conducted.
mgarrish: if we make a11y:contact we could use refines for different type of contact. not sure if we want 3 matching types with ONIX.
… do we want lots of properties or one we can refine.
… contact object but it doesn't play well with EPUB metadata to try to link to schema.org easier to mint our own for now.
CharlesL: Do we want to go with refines?
mgarrish: at this point it doesn't matter, we already use it so... it is ours so we can do what we want.
CharlesL: UX guide refines can be difficult.
mgarrish: if its only 1 level deep of refines its fairly easy to map. but individual property names might be the easier way to go with less pushback from W3C.
AvneeshSingh: May look to RickJ or Ivan to get feedback on this.
mgarrish: I can update the issue giving examples showing each way.
mgarrish: exemptions we didn't want in the spec as its circumventing a11y. But this metadata can be part of EPUB Accessibility.
AccessmodeSufficient is not compulsory
<AvneeshSingh> w3c/
AvneeshSingh: user experience guide is very dependent on it.
CharlesL: GCA requires it.
mgarrish: it can be repetitive metadata.
gpellegrino: end user it is more important to know AccessModeSufficient (AMS) instead of just AccessMode (AM). I think it should be required and AM could be optional.
CharlesL: that could be a problem for backward compatibility.
mgarrish: ISO specs to be backward compatibility is a concern.
gpellegrino: making AMS required is important. mapping AM is far less obvious. lets focus on AMS.
… we could wait until the next major version. metadata by LIA / GCA is already requiring it. l
AvneeshSingh: We can have informative text if you really want users to discover non visual reading you need to put this "textual" in AMS. If we can make the text stronger might be useful here.
gpellegrino: maybe add a note.
mgarrish: whole note is informative. we tried to add the singular AccessModes. I will look into it again.
gpellegrino: ACE could manage this as well, minor issue to include AccessModeSufficient.
Charles +1
… are we decided it will be 1.1.1?
mgarrish: : if we go to 1.2 we need to then add new conformance values.
gpellegrino: we may jump to 1.2 if we need to elevate to WCAG 2.2 or something like Fixed Layout comes. but.
Upgrading the floor WCAG specification for EPUB Accessibility 1.1.x from WCAG 2.0 to 2.2.
AvneeshSingh: pressure to upgrade to WCAG 2.2
gpellegrino: not sure if we need to mandate in our spec. we can add a note to strongly recommended 2.2 but in Europe there is still strong support for 2.1 they are updating to 2.2 but that will be another year.
… 2.0 in other countries is still the recommended level. People may not move to the new version because they are not required by local law.
mgarrish: the spec recommends to follow the latest version and AA. and EA is in informative text.
gpellegrino: from Germans we said EPUB 1.1 is aligned with EAA. but we think there is a miss understanding.
AvneeshSingh: they did say we should then bump to 2.1 as a minimum. WCAG 1.0 is obselete, what about WCAG 2.0?
gpellegrino: I don't see any notes about follow 2.0.
mgarrish: 1.0 is superseded. But WCAG 2.0 still co-exists with 2.1 and 2.2. So, I do not think that it is critical to move the floor WCAG standard.
AvneeshSingh:We need an issue where we can document our discussion and we can point people to it. Matt can you please create an issue for this and document our discussion here.
CharlesL: GCA and LIA require WCAG 2.2 AA.
AvneeshSingh: maybe we have an appendix reference to EAA and Title II requirements etc. India follows EN301549