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

[Minutes] Media Sub Team of the Accessibility Task force - Dec. 15, 2010

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:43:46 -0800 (PST)
To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <019401cb9cb1$ea0ff590$be2fe0b0$@edu>
The minutes from the 15 December 2010 Media Sub Team can be accessed as
hypertext from: 

http://www.w3.org/2010/12/15-html-a11y-minutes.html 

...and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please
report any errors, clarifications, mis-attributions, and the like by
replying-to this announcement on-list

JF

***************

HTML-A11Y telecon
15 Dec 2010

See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
Janina, John_Foliot, Eric_Carlson, Judy, +61.2.801.2.aacc, silvia
Regrets
Sean_Hayes, Geoff_Freed
Chair
Janina_Sajka
Scribe
John_Foliot, JF
Contents
Topics 
Identify Scribe
Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
Candidate Formats Report
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Pros_Cons_Overview#Summary_o
Media Queries on Track
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0145.html
Summary of Action Items



<janina> agenda: this
Identify Scribe

<JF> hello

<janina> scribe: John_Foliot

<JF> scribe: JF
Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

JS: the one issue we have is assigned to Sean, who is regrets this week
Candidate Formats Report
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Pros_Cons_Overview#Summary_o

JS: Silvia is very concerned about the language - is politically loaded

this is/was not our intent

would like to give her the opportunity to tweak the language before we
forward that document

JB: suggests that "at an early stage" is not as prejudicial as immature

[looking to see if Silvia is able to join us today]

JS: suggesting to set this aside for now

Sean said that Frank would have attend last week's call - no issue. Geoff
was happy with the document, but silvia had significant issues and we want
to ensure that those issues are/were addressed

EC: impression was that the wording in the TTML section was political (+
the reference to immature for WebSRT)

JB: it would be a shame after all this work to not have a good result as
we close to the end
... we should take a try at addressing those concerns, and then give
Silvia a 24-hour time-period to comment or equiv.
... it has been noted that we have looked at issues thta have strayed from
'pure' accessibility issues

and that this seems to be the issue here

JS: agrees that dropping lack of endorsement as a criteria, believe that
Adoption and w3C standard are factual and non-political. Change immature
to still under development

<janina> Yeah, Silvia!

JB: sorting out our own understanding on language issues, then focus in to
ensure we have agreement

SP: basid issues is that most of the arguments are not technical but
political

<Judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0110.html

SP: concern is that it dilutes the technical issues

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

JB: it is important that we use neutral wording

we should apply an 'objectivity' filter

[collectively working on edits to the Pros/cons document]

JB: perhaps the labeling is what is giving us the troubles: Pros and Cons

Presentation Profile of TTML
http://www.w3.org/ns/ttml/profile/dfxp-presentation

reference to Basic Profile however this is no actual "Basic" profile -
would like a link and use the proper name

SP: I have looked at the profiles in TTML

Transformation Profile is not fully supporting our needs

JB: would like to suggest some labeling ideas

for Con change to Work Needed

discussion of labelling

[the members of the call have been suggesting minor edits to the document,
which is being edited in real time and the reveiwed]

<silvia> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Comparison_Overview
<- new doc

JB: 2 final questions on the editing process we've undergone?

1) are there any other squarepegs we've missed

2) for those who were unable to join us, can we get a 24 hour window for
them to respond to these edits?
Media Queries on Track
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0145.html

RESOLUTOIN: ask the missing participants to comment by Friday Dec. 17th
noon Boston. If no controversy then post, else finalresolution via the
mailing list.

RESOLUTION: ask the missing participants to comment by Friday Dec. 17th
noon Boston. If no controversy then post, else finalresolution via the
mailing list.
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 23:44:21 GMT

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