Feedback requested on exceptions and exemptions from publishers

[GeorgeKerscher]

The Publishing Community Group developing the User Experience Guide for the Display of Accessibility Metadata is activitly seeking feed aback on the legal considerations asscoiated with exceptions and exemptions.

Here has been an extensive discussion in a previous issue found at:##280

We are seeking feedback and we currently believe that:

• The exception or exemption should be displayed when required by legal requirements.
• The publisher will provide the legal exception and exemption information in the metadata to assist in B to B transactions
• The display of the exception and exemption would be displayed to end users based on the negotiations between the publisher and the distributor displaying the information.
• If there is unknown accessibility information because of exception or exemptions, the distributor , with the consent of the publisher, may provide contact information, i.e., the display may say, "Contact the publisher for accessibility information."

We do not know what exactly to put into the guidelines and seek feedback.

[chrisONIX]

In regards to this suggestion :
The display of the exception and exemption would be displayed to end users based on the negotiations between the publisher and the distributor displaying the information.

We seek feedback on what any default display should be when there is no term yet agreed between the publisher and distributor.

If a third party wishes to display a text by default - what should it be ? Something very neutral like "This digital product is exempt from the EAA“
Feedback welcome on this as well.

[rickj]

We will not display a calculated or default statement that is declarative about a titles accessibility, or its conformance or exemption from the EAA, in line with the 2.1 instructions (https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/UX-Guide-Metadata/draft/principles/#accessibility-claims ) about claims.

What @GeorgeKerscher said in #280 (comment) resonates with us: _

We may want to emphasise that the publisher can clarify the accessibility of the publication or present what they think is appropriate in the accessibility summary. We could then state in example 7 that the details are not intended to be displayed to end users, or We may want to remove the details entirely.

_

[gautierchomel]

Email feedback from Hachette:

The exception or exemption should be displayed when required by legal requirements.

It's not clear what the legal requirements would be. But if it were really essential, it would have to be a generic message like ‘This ebook is exempt from EAA’.

The publisher will provide the legal exception and exemption information in the metadata to assist in B to B transactions

Yes

The display of the exception and exemption would be displayed to end users based on the negotiations between the publisher and the distributor displaying the information.

From a publisher’s perspective it should not be displayed at all

If there is unknown accessibility information because of exception or exemptions, the distributor , with the consent of the publisher, may provide contact information, i.e., the display may say, "Contact the publisher for accessibility information."

Two cases here:

• Accessibility information is provided by the publisher: the distributor should give the information to the customer
• Accessibility information is not provided by the publisher: the distributor could suggest the customer to reach out to the publisher directly or to the local supervisory authority (Arcom for France for instance)

[chrisONIX]

For information on this feedback

Any contact information can already be included in the ONIX file and there is a specific role code already for Accessibility Contact - https://ns.editeur.org/onix/en/198/01

It would be sent like this in ONIX 3

01 Effectiv Publishing Accessibility lead Georgia Smith +1 212 555 0123 gsmith@effectiv.com

To meet the requirements of the EU GPSR, which comes into force in December 2024 and applies to all physical products sold in or to consumers in the EU - we will also be adding the ability to send an address - Street address, postal code and country.
This is to meet the obligation that all retailers must display contact product safety contact information on their websites and all details must also be available in accessible formats.

So any publisher that can not supply an accessible format can at least give full contact details in a structured format which can be used by websites as needed.

It would be better for a publisher to seek legal counsel on this proposal and for W3C to avoid giving advice and also for publishers to check with requirements from platforms that may have other legal requirements - particularly in line with this:

If there is unknown accessibility information because of exception or exemptions, the distributor , with the consent of the publisher, may provide contact information, i.e., the display may say, "Contact the publisher for accessibility information. »

As this may conflict with other legal obligations for retail websites under other EU directives.

A simple generic message as a note ‘This ebook is exempt from EAA’ - makes sense - as this gives the necessary information to those who understand these things but the ordinary consumer will refer to the other accessibility information to check if the title is compatible with their preferred method of reading.

[rickj]

While we are in favor of a generic statement, there is significant potential for confusion if that statement references the EAA (or any specific legislation) when that statement is viewed in another region.

[rickj]

A suggestion:

We are already concatenating several potential statements in the Accessibility Summary field (accessibility_summary, accessibility_addendum, known-limited-accessibility). Rather than create an additional field, why not say that a publisher can create a statement declaring whatever they believe needs to be said for a region, and if that field is not empty, then add it to the end of the Accessibility Summary?

[clapierre]

The only problem @rickj is the metadata field already exists and is just a binary option either it exists or doesn't in both ONIX and EPUB metadata. No option to qualify it. The only thing publishers can do now in addition to marking one of these exceptions exist is to qualify it in the accessibilitySummary or similar options in ONIX. So, there is nothing really, we can do at this point. Recommending Publishers qualify this would be in some best practices around using those exemptions which is not this document.

[rickj]

@clapierre Let me clarify... add these to the Accessibility Summary area:

IF eaa_exemption_micro_enterprises is NOT empty: THEN display "The Publisher has claimed that this product falls under European Accessibility Act exemption for Micro-enterprises.

IF eaa_exception_disproportionate_burden is NOT empty: THEN display "The Publisher has claimed that this product falls under European Accessibility Act exception for Disproportionate burden.

IF eaa_exception_fundamental_modification is NOT empty: THEN display "The Publisher has claimed that this product falls under European Accessibility Act exception for Fundamental modification.

[clapierre]

Thanks Rick, interesting concept. Perhaps, not sure if this gets us any closer thou to be honest, if the publisher doesn't want that information posted I doubt it matters if its under its own section or added to the accessibilitySummary.

[rickj]

Here was my thought:

• Creating a 'Legal' section creates a lot of expectations and requires nuanced language to be appropriate for all jurisdictions
• Given we have existing EAA specific binary metadata fields, we have to assume someone will use them
• Those fields are claims the publisher is choosing to make. If they don't want to make them, don't include them
• They are related to the same type of claims we are concatenating in the accessibility summary
• Thus... let's make standardized claims for all three, and just include them in the accessibility summary

[clapierre]

You make a good point @rickj and we do have something which Publishers already will be calling out something negative in their publication if they include any Hazards, so I tend to agree with you.