Guidelines need to alert distributors about disclosing DRM in their content

[GeorgeKerscher]

Publishers have information about their distributed content not having DRM. However, a distributor may use DRM. The distributor should make it clear that their DRM does not cause problems with Assistive Technology. This means that the publisher's metadata is not passed through automatically, but undergoes a modification based on the practices in use by the distributor.

[HadrienGardeur]

This goes beyond just the DRM itself. Restricting publications on a single reading environment also means restricting what's possible with the publication potentially.

For example Kindle apps and devices cannot support read aloud on FXL EPUB, so even with a well-authored FXL where content is in the reading order and images have alt text, you won't be able to use a read aloud feature (or even a screen reader?).

[gautierchomel]

Currently, section 2.3 Non-accessibility metadata says:

the following information should always be displayed: [...] Protection measure or lack thereof — The protection measure may block assistive technologies such as screen readers. In addition, many specific eReading devices such as DAISY readers or Braille note takers are not equipped to read encrypted files.

[mattgarrish]

Currently, section 2.3 Non-accessibility metadata says:

Having contradictory information potentially not even near the accessibility section doesn't seem like effective placement. A vendor shouldn't be saying that content is screen reader friendly only to somewhere else say that it's not.

Why wouldn't we want this as a prominent warning in the accessibility section or have guidance to vendors not to display statements that they know are contradictory to the experience their reading system provides?

[gautierchomel]

I am not sure that a vendor can assess what's contradictory. It would mean to know the exact reading combo used by the consumer and maintain an intensive monitoring to know when which device or software is updated.

That's why we opted to recomand to inform the eventual presence of a DRM whitout making assertion on wheteher that invalids the accessibility or not.

[mattgarrish]

But this is about intended consequences, not accidental side effects. The vendor will know if the DRM they are applying disables read aloud, for example, as it's their choice. As @HadrienGardeur says, Amazon knows that FXL content can't be read aloud, and I doubt you're getting the book outside their ecosystem through legal means.

That kind of restriction isn't likely to change by reading system within the vendor's ecosystem. If they block a feature, it won't come on and off based on device.

I don't know if the answer is to put a warning at the start of the accessibility section or to leave it to vendors to alter what statements get displayed, or how, but having a warning in a non-standardized other location in the metadata is going to be easy to miss.

[gautierchomel]

The example is a reading system restriction, not a DRM restriction. My Victor Reader unfortunately does not read LCP protected files, but I hope that this will change soon.

Reading system limitations is another complicated topic.

[mattgarrish]

Reading system limitations is another complicated topic.

Yes, but the user does have some control over this through the ability to choose their preferred reading systems - or at least they know what limitations their particular choice has going in. I think it is out of scope of what we need to worry about.

I'm only thinking about restrictions that the distributor intentionally places through their DRM, or knows applies within their ecosystem.

[gautierchomel]

I suggest to close this issue as it is adressed (the guidelines already alert distributors about disclosing DRM in their content) and open another related to "reading environments limitations" which could eventually lead to a separated good practice document about "Informing the user about reading system accessibility policy".

[mattgarrish]

I disagree. The current advice is underspecified at best. It doesn't even seem to indicate that you have to disclose that there are going to be known issues, or that publisher metadata might need to be suppressed, only that you should say somewhere if DRM is applied or not - leaving it to users to guess if that's a bad thing.

[gautierchomel]

I don't see what else can be said, taking into account that:

• the user may choose the DRM at the moment to download the file
• the plateform cannot guess what RS is used, and therefore cannot know what may not work

We may want to advise distributors to have a page about accessibility of titles in relation to reading ecosystems, but that's another document.

Let's discuss that in a call then.

[GeorgeKerscher]

On a BISG Accessibility call today, something similar came up. This is not strictly a DRM issue and relates to the capabilities. I don't know if this needs a separate issue or if we address it through this one.

When a distributer locks in the reading of a title to their platforms, IMO they should adjust the presentation of the metadata and adjust the presentation of the features according to their capabilities. For example, if they do not have a go to page function, indicating that direct page navigation should be adjusted. It appears that some distributors are already doing this, and it should be a prominent part of the guidelines.

It gets more complicated, because they should not make it appear that this is a problem in the book that the publisher has diligently worked to make available, but a clear limitation of the reading system.

[mattgarrish]

The reading system capability issue I find problematic because that should be information they're providing the user up front rather than when they're buying content. Some offerings could be accessible while others might not (e.g., no audio rendering on low power eink reading devices).

[gregoriopellegrino]

Yes, there is usually a separate page describing the reader's accessibility features. Many guideline implementers include a link to the reader's feature description near the accessibility metadata section.

This makes it clear what is being communicated by the publisher (the header of the accessibility metadata section clearly states that this is information from the publisher) and what is available in the reader(s).