– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

Update from accessibility summary guidance document sub task force:

<AvneeshSingh> https://w3c.github.io/publ-a11y/drafts/schema-a11y-summary/

<AvneeshSingh> Issue #2116

<AvneeshSingh> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/2116

<CharlesL1> issue found here: https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/2116#issuecomment-1170458128

GeorgeK: there are concerns about adding Accessibility Summary on thousands of ebooks in Europe
… plus the possible inconsistency between the machine readable metadata and the accessibility summary which is free text

CharlesL1: from Bennetech: for our certification program, we ask publishers and vendors to add it, it's been controversial
… my view is that the accessibility summary is a field where to had additional information on the accessibility of the book (email address, specific works, etc.)
… I think we'll continue to suggest to use this field

Gautier: in the accessibility summary guidelines I've read "in some times this is the only information that will be displayed to the enduser"

AvneeshSingh: some retailers may pickup only the accessibility summary and display it

Gautier: I think it is inconsistent with the UX guidelines for display accessibility metadata
… I think we have to be more clear on this topic
… in my view we should push to adopt the UX display guidelines

GeorgeK: very good point, we should incourage to display all the accessibility metadata
… but I have concerns about the industry implementing our guidelines
… at the same time accessibility summary can add some information that cannot be expressed in other metadata
… for example the presence of the extended description is something that should be added in the accessibility summary
… I have to work on the table in the document and maybe remove the sentence that Gaurhier cited

ccarr: we think that the accessibility summary is important for libraries
… and not to check in different places

GeorgeK: have you reviewed the UX guidelines?

ccarr: at this time there is no way in the library system to manage all the accessibility metadata

AvneeshSingh: if we make the accessibility summary option, does this affect you?

<CharlesL1> https://www.w3.org/2021/09/UX-Guide-metadata-1.0/principles/

ccarr: Ideally for the user I think it would be best to have it

CharlesL1: the conforms to is not a requirement, I think it is a SHOULD
… from a developer point of view, it is super simple to manage the accessibility summary, instead of managing all the metadata

gpellegrino: maybe having a focus with librarians would help, maybe the accessibility summary can be generated my libraries starting from machine readable metadata
… also a question: if the accessibility summary and the machine readable metadata are inconsistent who wins?

zheng_xu: I think maybe is not the right time for making accessibility summary mandatory

Naomi_: thinking about the backlist, thousands of ebooks, I think that creating automatic accessibility metadata can be quite simples (e.g. page list)
… creating accessibility summary is quite expensive, also for maintaining, if we want to change modify the free text in the future, it is very complicated to update it automatically

GeorgeK: this document aims to provide the guidelines to publishers on what to put in accessibility summary
… I think there are marketing opportunities in this free text metadata

AvneeshSingh: I'll copy-paste this minutes in the issue tracker
… and ask other feedback from the WG

<AvneeshSingh> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lh0TwYHg574WFvdIAB1-Pns3fF7oSCjD/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110044170227731414177&rtpof=true&sd=truezakim, next agendum

Chrisolver: I think one concern on the library staff is the correctly wording

Update from MARC cross walk sub task force:

Chrisolver: we've published a draft of the crosswalk
… our proposal is to add a paragraph telling that it is a preliminary version of the document
… in the library world we are not ready to make decitions
… so we'll integrate the feedback we've got, and the move it to GitHub
… I think we can do it in July
… so if there'll be relevant changes in our domain, we'll get back on the document for changing it

AvneeshSingh: do you think we can start to review the document or do we wait the move to GitHub?

Chrisolver: both for us is fine

AvneeshSingh: the Google Docs has problems with accessibility
… in any case before publishing the document we'll have one or two months for reviewing it

Chrisolver: it may also take more time

Gautier: I can help in moving the document to GitHub

Calls in mid July to mid August holidays period?

AvneeshSingh: what are your ideas for having calls during the holidays?

Maybe a call on the fourth week of July

I'll send the calendar invite
… AOB