Rewrite of Complex content was Charts diagrams etc

[GeorgeKerscher]

I could not find in the issues a new name for this section. From my memory of the discussion, we said "Complex content" so that is what I went with.

I have math chemistry, charts, diagrams, figures, and graphs as the list of items in addition to math and chemistry.

In the examples, I have appended to the IDs we use

For the math:
-as-mathml
-as-latex
-as-descriptive
For chemistry:
-as-mathml
-as-latex

Question:

Should we use the word "mathematics" in the normal text and in the descriptive text? Some places use maths and others math, but mathematics is the formal usage.

[gregoriopellegrino]

As a proposal for statements I would suggest:

Contains:
- complex images are described by extended descriptions
- math formulas in accessible format (MathML)
- math formulas in accessible format (LaTex)
- math formulas in accessible format (formulas as images with textual description)
- chemical formulas in accessible format (MathML)
- chemical formulas in accessible format (LaTex)

[GeorgeKerscher]

I assume the suggestions made by Gregorio is for the descriptive statements. I will make those changes.

I will have the descriptive reference Charts, diagrams,figures, and graphs as complex images in the compact. It will be writen out in descriptive.

I also will order the items as the three math followed by the two chemistry, and then the complex images.

[GeorgeKerscher]

in the latest commit, we have math formulas in the examples. In the description we only use the word math. In the compact we have only math. Do we need formulas for the math?

Also I have removed the word chemistry everywhere in this section. It is replaced with chemical formulas. As far as I know, chemical formulas can be represented in MathML and in LaTex. The rest of chemistry is represented in images, so I think this change is technically correct.

[mattgarrish]

Is using "complex content" as a title a good idea? It doesn't really convey anything to the average user, and the content itself isn't necessarily complex. Just because there's math doesn't make the equations complex, for example.

The grouping seems like it's for the accessibility of highly visual content. Is there some name more in that vein that would work?

Note that I'm not suggesting we go back to having all the content types in the title again, but try to get closer to what groups these together.

[gautierchomel]

Preview

[gautierchomel]

With apologies, I wanted to suggest changes, but I ended up amending the PR with an extra commit.

The changes are fixing a repetition:

• "accessibility of complex content not identified as being accessible" becomes "complex content not identified as being accessible"
• "accessibility of math, chemical formulas, charts, diagrams, figures, and graphs not identified as being accessible" becomes "math, chemical formulas, charts, diagrams, figures, and graphs not identified as being accessible"

[gautierchomel]

Repetition to fix: "Accessibility of [...] not identified as being accessible"
It should be either "accessibility [...] unknown" or "maths [...] not identified as being accessible".

[gautierchomel]

Same as in the descriptive sentence.
Repetition to fix: "Accessibility of [...] not identified as being accessible"

[gautierchomel]

Is using "complex content" as a title a good idea?

I agree with @mattgarrish that it is not very understandable (isn't a psychcognitive book with text only a complex content in itself?)

Maybe it is only "Content"

[mattgarrish]

Even saying "complex images" is a bit misleading. We don't know if the images are complex or not, as that's not solely what determines whether an image needs a description. It's the amount of information that needs to be conveyed. You could have a chart that isn't terribly complicated to read, for example, but contains a lot of information.

Complex is more of a value judgement.

Looking at this again this morning, couldn't the math and chemistry statements fit under a STEM heading? And is there a way to add image descriptions to the nonvisual reading section? Maybe like how conformance is done with a general statement first and then detailed information like the presence of extended descriptions and transcripts after? As it is, you have to go to two separate sections to find those other pieces of information.

[gautierchomel]

The french implementation says "Images described in read aloud and braille" instead of "All content can be read as read aloud speech or dynamic braille"

[GeorgeKerscher]

I like those changes.

[GeorgeKerscher]

The Complex content section could be renamed to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM).

I think we would also want to duplicate the information about extended descriptions under Support For nonvisual reading. In this way, it would only appear twice if there was math or chem. it would follow alt text.

Would this work?

[gregoriopellegrino]

In my opinion, using a title that defines the content, without having metadata about the classification of the ebook, is not a good solution. For example, we can find mathematical formulas in sociology books, economics, business administration manuals, etc. We have recently analyzed several numerical Kabbalah books with mathematical formulas.

Also, extended descriptions are not only about nonvisual reading (also because they are visible to everyone) and are very useful for example for users with dyslexia.

[avneeshsingh]

Indeed, we started pondering for changing name because we wanted this heading to go beyond STEM content.

[mattgarrish]

and are very useful for example for users with dyslexia.

How do you know that someone with dyslexia can read an extended description, though? It assumes it's not hidden and linked up through aria-describedby. The only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that it will be available to AT.

You can still separate formulas and equations from image descriptions without literally using stem as the header. I'm still not seeing what connection they have to image descriptions.

[GeorgeKerscher]

I think we should include information about extended descriptions in the Support for nonvisual reading. I think it goes just under the alt text.

What we are really saying is that everything is in text.

Then we are left with MathML and LaTex.

This area is around mathematical and scienftific notation. There is Physics, Biology, and other areas covered in this category.

I am proposing two options:

1. To include a area with the heading of , "Mathematical and scientific notation"
2. Add this under nSupport for nonvisual reading.
   If we put it under nonvisual reading, it would make this section really long.

In the output under that heading, I would think there would be only one or two resulst, one for math and one for chemm.

What do we think? We need to decide.

[mattgarrish]

1. To include a area with the heading of , "Mathematical and scientific notation"

I'm good with this.

[gregoriopellegrino]

I propose to discuss this in the editors' call, it seems to me that different interpretations and meanings are being mixed up.

[GeorgeKerscher]

Gregorio, should I do a commit with that heading to facilitate the discussion tomorrow?

[mattgarrish]

"accessibility of rich content not identified as being accessible"

Shouldn't this text also be changed to match the change below? It should probably be: "rich content not identified as being accessible"

[mattgarrish]

What happens if only some of these things are not identified as being accessible? I wouldn't think it'd happen too often that they're all found in a book and they're all not identified as accessible. This relates to the problem with the techniques that I noted in #505 that the statement about all rich content types not being identified could be output at the same time as statements about individual rich content being accessible.

[mattgarrish]

Weren't we going to add audio and video? I'm only finding video added.

[GeorgeKerscher]

We have the section on audio books. That is more or less the whole book as audio and with synced media.

In the Rich content section, I am adding portions of audio content and transcripts. In my mid this would cover things like a reading of a poem and other short clips.

There may be something to change in the techniques; there may be two variable conditions associated with the ID I am using.

We do not have descriptive audio as a metadata value anywhere? I have seen it in videos, but it is not common outside of movies.

joined

[mattgarrish]

In the Rich content section, I am adding portions of audio content and transcripts. In my mid this would cover things like a reading of a poem and other short clips.

Right, in the text I clicked to comment on it has this:

indicates the presence of math, chemical formulas, charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, or videos within the title

with videos being the new addition. I was expecting it would have audio and video listed in the string if we're capturing audio clips here. I think the same applies to a couple of other spots where only video is mentioned.

[GeorgeKerscher]

I have the commit in process. Should have it done later.