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

Media Subteam Minutes for 1 December

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:24:01 -0500
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101202152401.GE2526@sonata.rednote.net>
Minutes from our HTML-A11Y Media Subteam teleconference on 1 December
are copied below in text and are also available in HTML at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/12/01-html-a11y-minutes.html
   W3C

                                                           - DRAFT -

                                                       HTML-A11Y telecon

01 Dec 2010

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Janina, Geoff_Freed, Sean_Hayes, Kenny_Johar, Plh, +28012aaaa, silvia, Eric_Carlson, Judy

   Regrets

   Chair
          Janina_Sajka

   Scribe
          silvia

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
         2. Fallbacks http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0246.html
         3. Candidate Formats Report
     * Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <janina> agenda: this

   <janina> Hi, Silvia, yes, please join #htmla

   <scribe> scribe: silvia

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

   action-22?

   close action-68

   gah, we are missing trackbot

   action-88

   action-89

Fallbacks http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0246.html

   sorry, I'm wrong

Candidate Formats Report

   <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

   <trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel
   with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

   trackbot, init

   <plh> trackbot, associate this channel with #html-a11y

   <trackbot> Associating this channel with #html-a11y...

   <plh> action-88?

   <trackbot> ACTION-88 -- Sean Hayes to review Media Fragment URI 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100624/
   -- due 2010-11-24 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/88

   <Sean> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html

   <plh> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent

   <plh> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc

   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Pros_Cons_Overview

   <kenny_j> thanks.

   after reviewing the long list of requirements last week on
   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Mapping_to_Requirements in became apparent that we need a short summary
   that we can use as a basis for recommendation

   John has started preparing this in the above document

   this may become the basis for the potential chartering of a new working group

   it should lead to a work plan for the new working group

   (this was Janina)

   geoff: is there a timeline?

   janina: it would be good if we can conclude it this week - it is a lot of desire to move quickly

   geoff: I can help

   silvia: I am working on several inputs from diverse parties towards missing features around captions etc
   ... I wonder what the urgency is

   plh: seems to be a lack of coordination between the a11y WG and the HTML WG
   ... the HTML WG has an action item to investigate WebSRT further
   ... I don't want to have work on multiple formats for the same problem solution

   janina: what we're not ready to say in this group is that we are perfectly comfortable with WebSRT to the exclusion of
   TTML

   geoff: I agree - but given the statement of the browser vendors to support WebSRT, the question is whether we should
   spend time on TTML

   janina: I am not clear whether all browser vendors object to TTML

   
 it sounds to me like MS may use WebSRT

   sean: they will not oppose a common solution, but that doesn't mean they will oppose TTML

   janina: I think I also heard there will be support from Adobe for TTML

   
 and others may announce this support, too

   <Sean> what I said is that IE want a common solution, and will do webSRT if that is it

   <Sean> that does not imply opposition to TTML

   <Sean> k. well just being clear

   silvia: if the browser have decided to support WebSRT, does it make sense for W3C to focus just on that

   janina: well, we know that it doesn't yet provide for all needs

   <Sean> when it is a W3C soec

   <Sean> spec

   geoff: when it's in w3c, we can get it into shape

   <Sean> besides we dont have to wait for browser mftrs to do TTML

   janina: I am uncomfortabel until I see solutions

   <Sean> http://www.cwmwenallt.com/ttml/ttml-demo.htm

   http://yayquery.github.com/jquery-singalong/

   <gfreed> nice demo.

   silvia: it's not quite true there are no implementations for websrt

   
 there are implementations like the one above

   <Sean> yayquery demo not working in IE9

   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Mapping_to_Requirements

   janina: are we ready to make a recommendation for something that hasn't proven to work for all our requirements?

   silvia: I have added examples in the gap analysis for how to do it now or how to fix it

   
 if we get control of websrt, we can make it support all needs

   janina: what is the feeling in the group?

   sean: if TTML is not allowed to win, then what's the point?

   geoff: I agree - making a recommendation by us doesn't seem to make much sense

   plh: we need input from this group soon before decisions are being made in the html wg

   janina: so what recommendation are we going to make?

   geoff: it just doesn't seem like TTML is going to go anywhere here, so we should probably move with websrt or rather an
   improved version of it

   kenny: do we have a clear indication from browser vendors that they will not support TTML?

   janina: we heard it from a couple

   kenny: can we do a quick check with the browser vendors?

   <gfreed> geoff makes this recommendation reluctantly.

   silvia: I think the indications we got from the vendors was very clear

   Mozilla, Safari, Opera in particular

   kenny_j: we should ask for official responses

   
 we don't have formal statements about what they are prepared to implement

   janina: also if they are ready to provide the engineering resources to fix the gaps

   plh: another way of doing this is to point out the gaps and that websrt needs to support these for us to make a
   recommendation

   janina: identifying the gaps is important

   <kenny_j> I need to drop off the call now. Janina, I will call you in half an hour.

   silvia: we don't make the decision, so we can extend John's page and say that givne these things are fixed, we are
   happy to accept either format

   plh: or we can propose to create a WG that will sort out those issues

   <kenny_j> If we have a clear statement from the browser vendors that they will support web srt going forward + the
   additional features we introduce, then web srt is the logical choice.

   geoff: I feel we are going to end up with a non-xml version of TTML

   <kenny_j> bye all.

   geoff: it will add a lot of time to the process
   ... in the meantime the caption world will move forward

   sean: TTML is already done

   geoff: a single format would be preferrable

   plh: it is not clear to me if the html wg wants to point to one single format

   
 only if we want a single format do we have to push the HTML WG towards that

   sean: the track format is the most important thing - the rest can be left open

   silvia: I think we need a common baseline format supported by all browsers

   sean: we can decouple the decision on what is the baseline format and what we standardize

   
 we don't want to hold up the HTML5 spec by insisting on a baseline format

   plh: we need some recommendation to the HTML WG

   
 my fear is that the two groups are out of sync

   janina: do we agree that a high level summary/gap analysis document would be good to return to the HTML WG

   silvia: I'd be happy with that

   geoff: if a WebSRT group is chartered, we will want to make sure that the requirements are met

   janina: a new requirement just evolved in the mailing list on how to synchronize chunks binary and text

   
 if text and audio chunks are being synchronized at very different locations in the code, I am concerned whether this
   is smart

   eric: I don't understand

   <Judy> silvia here it is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0025.html

   eric: David Singer sent a concern about what we really want to support in browsers

   <JF> is there a different number for calling in? I go to a11y# and am told i am the first to join

   geoff: no browser is supporting TTS natively

   silvia: the screen reader would support this through the browser's accessibility API, which is already in place

   geoff: is it going to be in sync

   silvia: it's at a different level - the need to synchronize audio from resources and from TTS is not in the markup
   level

   janina: what about synchronizing sign language and main video synchronization

   eric: when the sign language takes longer than the speech, there needs to be some additional information

   janina: I am also concerned that everything needs to pause at the same time

   silvia: I think that's possible when implemented and controlled by the browser

   judy: will we share the summary with the HTML WG?

   janina: I think we should do that today

   judy: are there edits missing?
   ... also the request from kenny to ask for positions by browser vendors

   
 there are foregone conclusions

   judy: what will we be saying to the broader html wg and wrt to a Websrt charter?

   
 there is an urgent timeline

   janina: I don't think we have a conclusion on any of these

   judy: let's come to an agreement

   1. John's summary

   judy: do people feel this can be shared with the HTML WG tomorrow?

   Sean: no

   
 my comments are on the mailing list

   silvia: I'd like to add a bit more on the websrt side

   judy: can we get this done by tomorrow?

   plh: we can report to the html wg and give feedback that we are going to provide a document

   judy: janina can provide an interim statement
   ... how will we get it finalized?

   janina: if Sean and Silvia simply added their input to the wiki page, that would be ok by me

   
 I'd rather have the edits directly than lost in emails

   judy: can we have the edits by Friday?

   sean: yes

   silvia: yes

   geoff: do you want all the comments on the wiki?

   janina: keep it terse and at the summary level - no details

   
 link to the details

   2. Kenny's suggestion for vendor positions

   judy: is there concensus from the group that this should happen?

   
 and how we could go about it?

   janina: not sure there is concensus - I wonder how difficult it will be to get people on record

   plh: let's ask eric :)

   eric: committing the company's resources is way above my pay grade ;-)
   ... I am happy to ask the question to others in the company

   silvia: what is the question?

   how strongly do the browser vendors feel about a xml based solution?

   judy: maybe it's a very sensitive question to answer

   eric: if we are going to ask a question, it should not be about xml vs non-xml, but more directly whether a vendor
   plans implementing support for WebSRT or TTML or both

   
 whether there is a preference

   judy: also whether there is an aversion

   geoff: also needs to be about the extensions for websrt

   silvia: maybe make a questionnaire with multiple questions

   
 TTML vs WebSRT

   
 whether generally XML

   
 whether support for WebSRT extensions

   judy: might be something to raise tomorrow at html wg meeting

   janina: might be difficult to summarize tomorrow

   judy: we should mention that if websrt is the format, we need extensions

   janina: the wider exploration had merit

   
 taking it all into a separate wg makes a lot of sense

   judy: was there a consensus with regard to whether the new wg should be websrt specific or have a wider focus?

   silvia: my opinion is the new wg should specifically look at websrt - there's already a wg for ttml

   
 the decision which format to use is not one that would be done in the wg

   judy: there are other needs that go beyond the mere format that need to be resolved

   silvia: the more we pack in the longer it will take

   <gfreed> i have to hang up-- apologies.

   <gfreed> will look for the notes and add my comments.

   janina: we are clear on the first question - the second one is still unclear

   <plh> rm

Summary of Action Items

   [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 Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:24:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:27 GMT