Metadata guide title
Closed this issue · 13 comments
It's been noted that the current title is a bit too broad, since we're focused on display for publications.
I think it would help to add "Publication" to the title, but as the title is already quite long maybe we could also look at shortening it to:
UX Display Guide for Publication Accessibility Metadata 2.0
I expect the audience for this document will already know UX as an acronym so we don't need to write it out in full (an abbr tag could always be added if we think it's important).
+1 to abbr tag :)
It was mentioned on the editors call, that digital publications should be emphasised. I am thinking that it would only make the title longer to include it there, and we can clarify that for anybody who begins to read.
My only doubt is that, especially in the library world, there may be an expectation that the guide will serve to describe accessible print publications (printed Braille, enlarged characters, etc.).
there may be an expectation that the guide will serve to describe accessible print publications
I think that might be something to figure out for the body text. The title isn't specific to digital at the moment.
Perhaps the term "UX" is leading us astray and stretching the title?
How about:
Display Guide for Accessible Digital Publication Metadata 2.0
or
Display Guide for Digital Publication Metadata 2.0
Isn't the case for physical media the same as PDF, though? An ONIX record can describe the accessibility features of a braille or large print book, for example. Is that out of scope?
Perhaps the term "UX" is leading us astray and stretching the title?
This I agree with. I don't know that the guide really goes into the UX aspect since we explicitly stay out of how to present the strings. It only scratches the surface of UX by focusing on making human-readable strings.
What about Display Guide for Accessibility Metadata in Digital Publications 2.0
Display Guide for Accessibility Metadata in Digital Publications 2.0
This works for me, with or without digital depending on what's priority.
With one small change:
Display Guide for Accessibility Metadata of Digital Publications 2.0
Or perhaps even more simply:
Accessibility Metadata Display Guide for Digital Publications 2.0
Do we need "digital" in the title. I think we do not need to write the title like a legal statement, which covers all aspects. Since "accessibility metadata" is used in the title, it makes it obvious that we are talking in the context of digital space.
I am not very sure that this is crystal clear to all stakeholders. For example, in the working group in IFLA there is a lot of talk about metadata to describe accessible physical books (Braille, enlarged characters, augmentative communication, etc.).