W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

Media Teleconference Minutes for 25 August

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:35:20 -0400
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100825233520.GU2192@sonata.rednote.net>
Minutes from today's HTML-A11Y Media Subteam teleconference are provided
in text below and are available as html at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/08/25-html-a11y-minutes.html


   W3C

                                                           - DRAFT -

                                                       HTML-A11Y telecon

25 Aug 2010

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Eric_Carlson, Janina, Sean_Hayes, silvia, Judy, Plh

   Regrets
   Chair
          John_Foliot

   Scribe
          silvia

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Identify Scribe
         2. Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
         3. User Requirements: Revised Title, Intro & Sec. 2.5; Next Steps
         4. Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM
         5. Synchronizing Asynchronous Alternative Media Resources Followup
         6. next meetings, confirm date/time, choose scribe
         7. resume discussion of silvia's presentation
         8. plan presentations on other remaining technical approaches
         9. be done
     * Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <janina> agenda: this

   <janina> agenda CandidateGap Analysis: WebSRT; WMML, Controls, TTML, SMIL3, Etc.

   <scribe> agenda: this

   <janina> scribe: silvia

   agenda CandidateGap Analysis: WebSRT; WMML, Controls, TTML, SMIL3, Etc.

   zakim: take up item 1

   <janina> So, we already have a scribe and can move on.

Identify Scribe

   Open items:

   action-52

   JF on priority list -> still pending

   <scribe> ACTION: 53 to http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/53 <- today [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2010/08/25-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 53

   re: action 54: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/54 <- today

Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

User Requirements: Revised Title, Intro & Sec. 2.5; Next Steps

   janina: status update

   
 Michael and Silvia helped get Janina's and Judy's edits into the file

   
 into the requirements document

   
 a couple of things to highlight, that the group should look at and approve

   <janina> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements

   
 at the very top, I added a couple of paragraphs to explain better what this document is about

   <Judy> +1 on the title change

   
 I changed the title to "Media Accessibility User Requirements"

   
 trying to emphasize that these are user and not user agent requirements

   
 the introduction got a work-over, too

   eric: I think those are both very necessary changes

   +1 from me on both

   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Content_Navigation_by_Content_Structure

   janina: we hadn't define granularity level and anxilliary content in the content navigation section

   
 so I have added this

   eric: I think that's a nice explanation of it

   janina: I wanted to make sure it's understood that the navigation interrupts the sequential viewing of the content

   
 we need a way to get to them, to learn about them, and to get back to them later

   eric: looks good

   silvia: I think it's a fairly big introduction compared to other sections, but it's probably one of the least
   understood areas, so it's good to explain this properly

   judy: I wanted to make a comment about the disability categorisation, which is section 1

   
 I wanted to make some changes to the learning disabilities description

   <Judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities

   
 I want to arrange it to be more in line with this document

   
 I am proposing update the learning disabilities description by midnight tonight

   
 but there will be continuing improvements to the doc

   janina: should we declare it at the top as a living document?

   judy: I want to particularly continually improve section 1 of this

   silvia: I am happy for judy's edits to go in - and also to have it as a continuously evolving document as we come
   across more changes

   janina: I was trying to do a top-to-bottom read and I have a couple of small things, but one big thing

   
 we use "audio description" for described audio

   
 the preferred way today is "video description", since it can come in all sorts of content types, e.g. text or audio

   judy: I wouldn't want this to hold it back

   <janina> described video

   <Judy> [janina is saying "described video"]

   
 "described video" is the correct term now

   silvia: happy to make the change

   judy: if there are other simple edits, please let me know and I can make the changes by tonight

   janina: this is I think my list before we can go towards group consensus

   judy: proposal to approve as a finalized document of the group with the changes just discussed

   resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger
   W3C community

   
 as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight

   janina: any objections?

   corrected resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to
   the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight

   Resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the
   larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight

   resolved: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C
   community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight

   <janina> scribenic?

   <janina> scribe: silvia

   Resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the
   larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight

   <janina> +1

   +1

   <Judy> +1

   <Eric_Carlson> +1

   <Judy> and +1 from Sean

Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM

   janina: we are looking for a place to host NCAM's examples to make them available to the larger group

   
 I know, Eric re-cast one of the demos

   silvia: can we have the compositing assets from both examples

   
 if you could ask Geoff for that, janina, that would be helpful

   eric: in particular the second one which is RealMedia would be nice to get as separate assets, because otherwise I
   cannot even look at it

Synchronizing Asynchronous Alternative Media Resources Followup

   nothing to discuss before we get John's summary document

next meetings, confirm date/time, choose scribe

   judy: we should see if we can get proponents to introduce their respective specs

resume discussion of silvia's presentation

   janina: this is to resume from the discussion last week

   
 some discussion happened on list

   eric: we discussed whether an audio element should have a display of captions, since it doesn't have a visual
   presentation

   judy: I thought we would look at Johns spreadsheet next week and have a quick look through other formats before we
   invite Ian to introduce WebSRT

   janina: I'm curious to look at the formats now

   
 we have four candidates: TTML, SMIL3, WMML, and WebSRT

   sean: are you talking about SMIL as a whole or just SMIL Text?

   judy: just the restricted format

   sean: SMIL has a text format called SMILText which can be used within SMIL and is like a captioning format

   
 it's a simple but different version to TTML

   judy: can you present on that? 15-20 min is what I am thinking abou

   sean: yes

   silvia: today or next week?

   judy: I am thinking of getting these presentations next week and the week after

   sean: what is the purpose of these presentations?

   janina: as a run through existing formats to see what they can offer to facilitate meeting the user requirements

   
 we need to identify to advantages and disadvantages of all the technologies, potentially even merge different
   capabilities of one into the other

   eric: I wonder whether it really makes sense for us to recommend one format over another

   sean: even if we come up with a representation, where will that go

   
 we can educate this group, but a recommendation is not up to us to make

   eric: I agree and it would be a significant investment of our time to go through them all and understand them

   sean: we could all educate ourselves outside this group, since a phone conference will not give us an in-depth
   understanding

   judy: if we cannot recommend a format, we can at least give requirements matching information on the formats

   
 we do want to provide some input into the process of choosing a format

   sean: I think this group should stay around to mediate the discussion in the wider group

   
 what I don't want to see happen is that this group provides a proposal

   <Eric_Carlson> +1

   plh: I understand why some people in this group do not want to recommend a format

   <Judy> [so with video codec, it will be implementation-dependent because no agreement in the larger group]

   
 we now have the opportunity to make a recommendation on a baseline captioning format

   janina: I don't think we will have the discussions together with the W3C HTML WG and we won't be shy to introduce our
   opinions and ideas

   sean: I want to have the argument twice

   (sorry: that was on the use of don't in janina's sentence)

   judy: I am listening to Philippe's comments carefully because he has his eye on the overall process

   
 if we can get to some statement of guidance, because the larger WG doesn't quite have our insights yet

   
 so if we can get closer to a recommendation, that would probably be good

   
 maybe one way to do this would be to do the presentations that we were talking about, but to have a realistic set of
   expectations to surface some key questions

   
 something that we can capture against the requirements

   
 or do people have a proposal for a better way to proceed

   
 in order to capture better what we have done?

   
 so, Silvia presented on some parts before - was that useful?

   eric: Silvia's presentation was useful, but we will not be able to get to the level of detail here that is really
   required to make a decision

   <Judy> silvia: we need to get closer to people being able to make up their minds

   <Judy> philippe: i don't have more suggestions at this time

   silvia: I think it may be useful to educate the people in this group further and such for individuals to get closer to
   making up their mind, because it will be useful for the later discussion in the W3C HTML WG

   
 but I don't think we should recommend a format as a group

   janina: we should be able to solve all our text-related requirements with one text format, right?

   eric: I would go so far to say that a format the doesn't support all these needs isn't adequate

   judy: it would be useful to also make such a statement as a group on the text-related format

   janina: we have been told "you cannot even give us a captioning format"

   judy: how the format options lign up again requirements is important for us to express

   
 so that formats can be evaluated objectively and openly

   eric: that discussion will happen on the mailing list when the HTML WG will talk about a caption format and our user
   requirements will be a part of this discussion

   judy: we have to lead how the larger group comes to a consensus

   sean: wether we come to a consensus doesn't really matter, since what matter is what happens in the larger group

   silvia: I agree not to recommend a format, but we could evaluate each format against the table that John is creating

   sean: that's good homework to do

   judy: so is such an evaluation to most useful thing we can do?

   [broad agreement in the present group members]

   
 we will work through his matrix as soon as it is available

   
 so would we want the presentations after this then or dig straight into the evaluation?

   sean: if we are going to do a presentation, then that should be around the matrix rather than an abstract introduction

   janina: absolutely agree

   sean: if we want to do the evaluation in the next 2 weeks, we better get that table real soon

   judy: we might want to distribute the evaluation out to people

   sean: I am happy to present TTML

   
 TTML is not SMIL

   janina: will you do both then?

   sean: not on the same day

   judy: it would be good if Geoff could be present

   janina: we will ask Ian to present on WebSRT

   silvia: Ian would be the best to present on WebSRT but I am sure Eric and I can together explain it, too
   ... though we might get details wrong

plan presentations on other remaining technical approaches

   we will have the presentations and evaluation in the next couple of weeks

be done

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: 53 to http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/53 <- today [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2010/08/25-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 23:35:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:13 UTC