Meeting minutes
Extended Descriptions in EPUB3: Issue #2691
<AvneeshSingh> w3c/
gpellegrino: we presented the proof of concept established in transition to EPUB to the maintenance WG. Two main takeaway: document usecases (readers perspectives) for semantic markup and reading systems would prefer to have a role on the extended description itself.
AvneeshSingh: usecases will be particularly important when we'll present to other groups.
George: usecases must not restrain to ebooks, and apply to web contents too. Having a `Role` will make sure things are explicit for web browser and reading systems. Also, having a pictogram or an image instead of a text link would probably make things more acceptable for content creators.
AvneeshSingh: for readers use cases, let's open an issue and start a wiki page to collect references.
gpellegrino: use cases presented in the PMWG were "as a visual reader I want to have more informations on the image", "as a listener, " there's also usecases for tools in the production chain. ACE, EPUB editors, stats and report tools, etc. As an end user I would like to list all extended descriptions in an EPUB and see which has one extended description and which one not.
gautierchomel: listing images is a real usecase we've met with the french publisher'ss association about wether or not it is of interest to reproduce list of figures present in the printed edition, implying difficulties to maintain links, while a reading system should be able to provide better listing of figures.
AvneeshSingh: the route of a new DPUB Aria implies that a description could be not only for an image, so we would need a usecase that is not about images.
gpellegrino: to me this work is part of broader work for content creator guidance. I would think about a place where we can have all those together.
AvneeshSingh: PMWG is for project management, epub-spec is about the spec. There are permissions rights to figure out there. We'll discuss with the group. For now let's start with our usual publ-a11y repository.
Example of certifierCredential property: Issue #2760
<AvneeshSingh> w3c/
CharlesL: it's about W3C not endorsing companies. That mean we have to create a fake webpage to point to in an example.
CharlesL: I can use the real information in the issue and let Matt do the fake example from it.
DaleRogers: A question, I finished a book, went into all validators, I published the report and added the link to it in the ebook. The notion of being certified, I am not sure if it is about US policy and could be different in EU per example.
CharlesL: you are right, we need to figure out who did the evaluation. The certifier credential is refering to a defiined process.
AvneeshSingh: it's brand image and reputation thing.
DaleRogers: As an independant content creator, I can go to the process, but Certify sound Official. I don't feel confident to use it. I want to document the efforts I made to make it accessible. But I don't want to enter into claming something.
CharlesL: in your case, what you could do is to use the accessibility summary to describe your process.
CharlesL: It's interesting, we could probably make this clearer about what process is minimum required.
DaleRogers: I would apreciate guidance oabout what i can claim and what i cannot.
George: third party certification is usfull to make sure the reports are well done, features well tested.
Pull request: Add more accessibility document references
<AvneeshSingh> w3c/
please check this PR and comment before we merge.