Meeting minutes
<wendyreid> date: 2023-10-02
<wendyreid> https://
wendyreid: I moved the content of the note to the right repo
… and this we'll be the document we'll work on from now on
<wendyreid> https://
wendyreid: the Google Doc remains for the more experimental work
… in the short term we should make the note ready for publishing
… as a guidance for publishers for European Accessibility Act implementation
… I hope to have something ready for December
… we added some sections for reading systems
… I think there is some changes we should make
… we should remove any citation to specific software
<wendyreid> gpellegrino: Only one thing, last week Matt Garrish and I published a note on the exemption metadata for EAA, it required APA review
<wendyreid> ... when we reach a point with this document, we should ask for APA review as well
wendyreid: Agree
ken_jones: I think the introduction should be done first
… to really understand the goal of the document
… we'll this be a code-tutorial?
… a guidance?
… best practices?
wendyreid: I think in this document we should make best practices
… for the technical part we may have another document (like techniques for EPUB Accessibility)
… what do you think Shadi?
shadi: me, Cristina and Gregorio met and sent an email to the contact point in the European Commission
… I think at the moment we need some high level document
shadi: I think we should identify clearly what can be done and what not
gpellegrino: It's not an exemption, it's in the introduction, children's books, art books, should be made as accessible as possible
Simon_PRH: Something could be as accessible as possible, but not to the standards of EAA
shadi: I think in the EAA we don't have this specific requirements
… I think there is space to say what is achievable and what not
… and then try to write it in a "law" form
wendyreid: yes, the requirements of the EAA are quite high, it doesn't say how to implement things
Naomi: we may have a section explaining the known issues with this format
https://
wendyreid: yes, we have a section called "the limits"
… maybe we can expand it
ken_jones: we should speak about the limits in formatting the text
https://
ken_jones: maybe also linking to WCAG requirements not achievable in FXL
wendyreid: yes, but we also have the mapping document where we can add these things
gpellegrino: In the structure of the document, there are a lot of things that are related to HTML fixed layout
… we know the specs allow things like SVG in spine
… maybe split the document, or duplicate things for both HMTL and SVG
… and mentioning that there are a lot of FXL with images in the spine, even though it's disallowed in EPUB
… there are a lot of EPUBs in this format in the world
Naomi: yes, this is why we split the IDPF a11y techniques
… to not worry anyone
wendyreid: I think we should elevate this document to high level recomandations
Sueneu: I agree, it also future proof this document
ken_jones: A problem may be: we say that things can be done, but then authoring tools don't allow it
wendyreid: yes, this document may push authoring tools to improve
ken_jones: then may be ok for publishers to wait for new tools?
gpellegrino: I foresee that publishers may ask for the exemption for disproportionate burden
ken_jones: Case by case?
gpellegrino: Book by book
ken_jones: Is there a time frame?
gpellegrino: No, but it might be every 2 years or a similar period
JonasLillqvist: In Finland, we have a 5 year time limit
Sueneu: I think that having a high level document help publishers to understand what can be done
Simon_PRH: I think that having this document makes sense in any case
… both for suppliers and authoring tools
ken_jones: this document we'll be split as well
wendyreid: yes, I think we can have the code in the Google Doc
https://
wendyreid: ok, I have a list of things to edit in the document
… then I'll make a PR, so everyone can review it
wendyreid: if someone wants to read the whole document would be great