Beyond publishers. 2.1 Accessibility claims and declarations

[spudthebud]

I'm commenting on "Accessibility Metadata Display Guide for Digital Publications 2.0"

Section 2.1 Accessibility claims and declarations assumes that the only organization creating digital publications are publishers.

When presenting accessibility metadata provided by the publisher, it is suggested that the section is introduced using terms such as "claims" or "declarations." This heading should clearly convey to the end user that the information comes directly from the publisher and represents the accessibility information that the publisher intends to communicate.

However, there are considerable number of groups involved in remediation of digital publications. I'm thinking about university libraries and universities. As evidence of this activity, NISO has established a Working Group to Develop Standard Metadata for Remediation of Content for Accessibility.

There's also Project Gutenberg that creates digital publications from public domain books.

I suggest revising the text so as to generalize beyond publishers.

[avneeshsingh]

Good input, another topic for editors' call.

[clapierre]

This has been addressed in the principles.

[spudthebud]

@clapierre Where? Do have the link to the principles?

[clapierre]

@spudthebud The drafts are available at the following URLs:

• Guidelines: https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/a11y-meta-display-guide/2.0/guidelines/

• EPUB Techniques: https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/a11y-meta-display-guide/2.0/techniques/epub-metadata/

• ONIX Techniques: https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/a11y-meta-display-guide/2.0/techniques/onix-metadata/

[spudthebud]

@clapierre The first link there is the same one in the original comment that opened this issue. So, the original concern does not seem to be addressed. Can this ticket be reopened, please?

[clapierre]

Hello @spudthebud
I am happy to reopen this issue. but since we thought we have already addressed the issue, if you can please provide concreate example of what we are currently saying and what you would like us to change it to, that would be helpful and will be happy to discuss your solution.

Thanks

[spudthebud]

@clapierre Please, see the original comment I posted that opened this issue on November 5, 2024. I quoted a specific section that needs revision. I don't thinking anything substantive has changed in the sections of the guidelines I quoted on that day.

In terms of specific examples, in that comment, I drew attention to: libraries, remediation activities of libraries reflected in a NISO working group, and Project Gutenberg. Each of those draws attention to accessibility metadata producers beyond publishers.

[GeorgeKerscher]

It now reads:
Users may go to a bookstore or library, search for the title to purchase online, or have the title selected for them by an instructor

We also have issues for future work on how the guidelines would be applied by libraries serving persons with disabilities. I would think that this could also extend to remediated content that is republished. Some interesting question about who is making the accessibility claim at that point!
for a class.

[mattgarrish]

This sounds like the EPUB author problem all over again. We used author for the producer of the ebook and all it caused was grief.

Perhaps there's a more neutral term than "publisher" that we can define in the terminology for the metadata provider and use that instead.

[madeleinerothberg]

The specific section Mark is commenting on has not changed: [https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/a11y-meta-display-guide/2.0/guidelines/#a11y-display-hd].

Here is the entire section:

2.1.1 Display heading
When presenting accessibility metadata provided by the publisher, it is suggested that the section is introduced using terms such as "claims" or "declarations" (e.g., "Accessibility Claims").

The heading should clearly convey to the end user that the information comes directly from the publisher and represents the accessibility information that the publisher intends to communicate.

Do implementors know where their metadata comes from? If they do, then each implementor can introduce the data with information about where it comes from (publisher, library staff review, university staff review). If implementors generally don't know where the metadata came from, or is it a mix that can't be untangled simply, then they should adjust the heading language to what they know. So the open question for this guide is: what advice are we giving implementors for this introductory heading?

[spudthebud]

@GeorgeKerscher, that's in the overview section. My comment is about the Accessibility section 2.1. Recognition is needed that publishers are not the only ones creating accessibility metadata. University and university libraries create it too, especially when it comes to the remediation activity. Remediation is needed because students, faculty, and researchers in universities are expected to engage with the legacy of the born inaccessible.

[GeorgeKerscher]

I think this is good for future work. We know we want to expand the guidelines to libraries and organizations serving persons with disabilities. Remediated content is the area that would be of interest here and the NISO work mention in this issue would be taken into consideration. It is worth mentioning that @clapierre and @GeorgeKerscher are members of the NISO working group.