Certfied or Evaluated?

[gautierchomel]

While trying to explain the difficulties of translating “Certified” into French (#472), I realized that EPUB Accessibility 1.1 section 3.5 Conformance reporting uses the wording “Evaluator” and “Evaluated.”

I suggest that we adopt this wording for the Display guide instead of “Certified By” and “Certified”.

I think it best reflects the reality, especifically in the case of Self evaluation.

It also allows for better visibility of third party certifications, which includes more than just an evaluation.

[GeorgeKerscher]

Do we need these words added to the terms section?

[mattgarrish]

I recall we had this problem of certification vs. evaluation when we went through the ISO process. They also view certification in legal terms, so the language of certification was changed to evaluation. It was too late to change the property names, but if you compare the IDPF 1.0 version to the 1.1 version there's now a distinct lack of use of certify beyond those names.

[GeorgeKerscher]

I thought I would add this post from a NISO discussion list in the library space:
**
I think there's a critical issue to discuss, along with the risk it poses.
• The critical issue is recognizing a conflict of interest in self-declarations of accessibility.
• The risk is a breach of trust with library users who depend on accessibility metadata.
We would recognize the conflict of interest in a restaurant self-declaring its kitchen met health standards. That's why there are restaurant inspectors. Likewise, there's also a conflict of interest in publishers or libraries self-declaring their content was built or remediated to accessibility standards.

What's the risk? Outrage from users, betrayal of trust, and harm to users.

In the context of websites, there has been tremendous vocal outrage within blind communities about companies that make false statements about creating accessible websites. In 2021, the US National Federation of the Blind (NFB) issued a resolution Regarding the Use of Overlays to Make Websites Accessible to the Blind.

In this 2021 personal appeal on YouTube (3.5 minutes), Haben Girma, who is a Harvard law graduate and is Deafblind, expresses deep frustration about companies claiming they can easily make websites accessible. She emphatically expresses how trust has been broken.

Two years later, the founder of one of the companies issued an apology to the NFB. At the 2023 convention, the founder also addressed NFB members about how the company was trying to rebuild trust.

In the context of libraries and books, I asked a blind researcher to join a discussion with sighted librarians about accessible discovery experiences. On the issue of books being described as accessible when they weren't, the researcher said it was like being gaslighted.

What's a solution for this IFLA Network? A solution might include recognizing the need for independent 3rd parties to certify claims related to accessible metadata. In the context of publishing, we find an example in Benetech, which certifies the workflow of publishers wanting to create accessible books. Also, encouraging publishers and libraries to engage and work with people with disabilities, including in co-designing enjoyable reading experiences, could help.

[gautierchomel]

Could we imagine using "Evaluated" when there is no certifier credential and "{certifier credential} certified " when there is a certifier credential?

[clapierre]

The editors met and we decided to handle this by creating two sets of strings one for a stricter "Certification" vs. an "Evaluation"

We will also add notes to the main guidelines document and both techniques documents and comments in the JSON file stating that it will be up to the implementor to decide if certification vs. evaluation is warranted for their country's interpretation of these terms.

conformance-certifier = "certifier"
conformance-certifier-credentials = " with a credential of "
conformance-certification-info = "The publication was certified "
conformance-certifier-report = "For more information refer to the certifier's report"

and

conformance-evaluator = "evaluator"
conformance-evaluator-credentials = " with a reference of "
conformance-evaluation-info = "The publication was evaluated "
conformance-evaluation-report = "For more information refer to the evaluator's report"

Not really sure if we need the two prefix's unless we change the ID's from
conformance-certifier-credentials-prefix = " by"
conformance-certification-date-prefix = " on "
conformance-evaluator-credentials-prefix = " by"
conformance-evaluation-date-prefix = "on"
to
conformance-credentials-prefix = " by "
conformance-date-prefix = "on "

[GeorgeKerscher]

I believe we are getting away from requiring a prefix and constructing a sentence. Instead we are making each statement a stand alone.

[clapierre]

we have discussed this and is good.

[clapierre]

We need to have a option for display strings for evaluators

[gregoriopellegrino]

@clapierre @mattgarrish where do we add them? In the principles with an example?

[clapierre]

I think so, that makes the most sense.

[gregoriopellegrino]

@mattgarrish @gautierchomel @GeorgeKerscher @clapierre I realized that there was this outstanding issue left over

[gautierchomel]

My understanding is that our solution will not change the existing but add an option to permute the four "certifier" values for "evaluator"

• [ID: conformance-certifier]
• [ID: conformance-certifier-credentials]
• [ID: conformance-details-certification-info]
• [ID: conformance-details-certifier-report]

That means adding an explanatory paragraph to each of the three documents and 4 "evaluator" values to the JSON.

As it is, the vocabulary will depend exclusively on the localisation file, leaving the implementor with no choice.

[gautierchomel]

The fact that EPUB Accessibility 1.1 section 3.5 Conformance reporting uses the wording “Evaluator” and “Evaluated” while we recommend displaying "Certifier" and "Certified" is, I guess, symptomatic that something is missing or messed up at a higher level (I think we need a way to separate evaluation from certification, in-house process from third-party work).

As there are issues tagged as "certification" and "future work", I suggest that we apply the same tags here, let this document as it is and put that discussion on the agenda.

[gregoriopellegrino]

Okay, so nothing for this version, we will discuss it later.