Meeting minutes
<wendyreid> date: 2023-10-16
<gpellegrino> hi, can't find how to join
<wendyreid> https://
<wendyreid> w3c/
wendyreid: I made changes on the document and would like to have your comments.
gpellegrino: i have basic agrement topropose before digginig into the details. This doc being a note, the writings are not requirements. To me different parts of the doc seems like already existing in other docs, I think we can make link to make sure we don't get update complications. Also i feel we are more catholic than the pope here, i mean we require more than wcag, we may add suggestions but we should mention when we make proposal more than
WCAG.
gautier: I feel that EAA goes beyond WCAG, like for "reflowable", does this document should reflect WCAG or EAA?
gpellegrino: for me the doc that should reflect EAA is the mapping while this document on FXL is more on W3C part, so connecting to WCAG. I wouldn't use EAA as a reference point to this document.
wendyreid: thanks for the feedback I agree with Gregorio.
gpellegrino: we may have two sections, one "be compliant / inline with wcag" and another "things you can do to improve accessibility beyond WCAG". Restructuring is for me a starting point to work on this document.
wendyreid: (sharing screen), let's review PR comments...
gpellegrino: on the introductory part: add definition as intro, add section to mention others documents of reference and technics to comply...
… snce pdf can be wcag compliant, we should analyse wcag 2.2 and see if it fits FXL. I can do this exercice and welcome anyone who want's to do that with me...
… Reading Order (RO) and Navigation (nav.) seems too technical to me, we should separate them. Legibility should be flagged as beyond wcag.
gpellegrino: on RS (reading system) there are things to mention that are not in the document for RS compliance with EPUB spec.
<wendyreid> https://
wendyreid: ok, i'll edit those changes. Also to check Sueneu's comments on the PR.
wendyreid: i do think wcag covers a lot of things but legility in books is not covered, it's important to state about it here.
<wendyreid> https://
<wendyreid> https://
wendyreid: I'm not sure about what to mention on RS accessibility.
gpellegrino: to read UAAG :) zooming is important. Media overlays support seems important to me too.
wendyreid: yes, media overlay are typically what's in EAA but not in WCAG.
hadrien: i see a lot of fxl targeting child books.
SimonPRH: does media overlay apply to videos? syncronized captions? It's confusing to me.
wendyreid: I think we have to advice RS to support those features, It's not much about authoring rcomandation here but being sure it's supported.
wendyreid: i agree with Hadrien that pre recorded audio is underused,
wendyreid: it would be a benefit to have more syncronized media contents.
KenJones: I'm afraid the document will end telling accessible fxl is not achievable with the authoring tools actually.
gpellegrino: yes, i have the same feeling, it will be part of the disproportionate burden.
Naomi_: just to remember we have to limit the scope of this groupe to make sure we publish the note by the end of the year, that's why we agreed to keeep technics out for now.
Hadrien: apart from RO, the way you break the content is also importnat, span per letter or word affects TTS and scrreen readers. Without going too technical it is posisble to mention this and focus to the lowest hanging fruit.
jamesYanchak: code example are necessary, publishers should admit that , we can't wait for mainstream tools to do that for us.
SimonPRH: as publishers we understand code, it's not too hard nor too costly, but we see a source of problem in presentation made by the vendor. Adding code examples is ok to me and may end up to help publishers who need to learn some things.
gpellegrino: watchout technics are not only HTML, we ùmust also document SVG, that's why I would prefer to split.
<wendyreid> gautier: To add the mention of needing to split, publishers are not a single box, there are many differences, some are technical, some are editors, people who are nearest to the author need to understand this document too
gautier: Many people in publishing houses aren't technical, they need the language to talk to technical people