search

w3c / publ-a11y

Accessibility related discussions of the Publishing@W3C Groups
Other
22 stars 4 forks source link

Made changes in conformance section #339

Closed GeorgeKerscher closed 2 weeks ago

GeorgeKerscher commented 2 weeks ago

Added a note that explains the exemption problem. Also, changed a should to a may where we talk about showing the details.

gautierchomel commented 2 weeks ago

I would like to add clarity on the consensus at this point:

  1. If we do not suggest displaying it, publishers who want to give users exemption information can use the Summary to do so.
  2. If we suggest displaying it, publishers who don’t want it to be displayed must not use that metadata, which has other consequences for control, filtering, and data collection.

Option one is less likely to disturb or create a threat, so it is the most convenient one for consensus.

Also, an attention point raised regarding the confusion between Conformity to a standard, exemption to legal provisions, and user needs for information on accessibility features.

To address that, the proposal is:

  1. We keep the conformity section for conformance only (ONIX 196, 01 to 05 and 80 to 99; EPUB conformsTo and affiliated),
  2. The value “The publication does not include a conformance claim” is triggered when no conformity code is provided.
  3. The wording “The accessibility of this publication is unknown” Is changed to "The conformity of this publication to a standard is unknown".
  4. We delete the values “This publication is known to have accessibility limitations” as both ONIX 09 and Schema Accessibility Feature None are not about conformity. The absence of feature is already available to the end user as Non Visual Reading and Display Transformability are to be informed if Not possible or Unknown.
  5. We include nothing that needs a check related to exemption.

We can open separate issues to discuss:

  1. What and how legal information may be displayed?
  2. What and how known accessibility limitations can be informed and displayed?
avneeshsingh commented 2 weeks ago

It would be good to provide comments for improvements. We should avoid changing the PR without discussions with the original creator of PR (George). Let us discuss the process of working with PR in our next editors' call on next Thursday.

gautierchomel commented 2 weeks ago

We should avoid changing the PR without discussions with the original creator

True, I wanted to highlight the changes proposed but should not have been done by rewriting previous work. This should be fixed now. Here are the proposed changes to keep this section straight about Conformity