Recquirements for the certifiers report: Recquire certifier's procedues be described

[spudthebud]

Regarding, Accessibility metadata display guide for digital publications 2.0:

I recommend that the Certifiers report be made to require particular information: including a description of the certifier's methodology.

For example, I understand Benetech does not certify each book from a certified publisher. Rather they more accurately certifying the workflow that produces books. I understand this involves verifying three books that have gone through the workflow. If a publisher produces 100 books in a year, then 97 of the books have gone through a certified workflow but themselves have not been verified by Benetech.

Why does this matter? We don't want readers who detect a problem to have to argue with others in the publishing ecosystem about whether something is accessible or not. If a reader finds a problem in a book labelled Benetech certified, some people may inappropriately tell print-disabled readers that the particular book was inspected by Benetech when it may not have been. The reader could defend their experience by pointing to the procedure in the certifiers report and say "Not every book is inspected by Benetech."

Inspection methodologies will no doubt evolve. What a certifier does in 2025 may differ from what they do in 2035. Different certifiers may invest in different verification methodologies. Some of those methods may be more intensive than others. Perhaps one certifier specialized in science-subject matter, while another uses automated tools.

We want the reader to have the option of getting the certifier's report and be able to read what the certification procedure was.

[gautierchomel]

Related discussion: #161

[clapierre]

This topic is not covered under the Accessibility Display Guide and would be it's own document on how to design a certifierReport document. But keeping this open for future work we may do.