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

Re: minutes: HTML A11y TF telecon 2010-02-04 [draft]

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:42:17 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831002041442u4f26bf64k3db5b91da93457d0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Thanks a lot for the minutes.

I have some feedback on some of the media-related issues. Please read in-line.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Task Force Sub-Group Updates
>
>   MS: anyone with update on media?
>
>   <paulc> Can the person typing (scribe) go on mute?
>
>   EC: philip from opera and sylvia and i have been discusssing exposing
>   track level attributes media elemeents so possible for scripts to
>   query media files, discover if has CC or descriptive audio, [breaking
>   up]
>   ... wiki page with summary of thoughts to this point
>   ... welcome feedback from anyone about discussion or contents of wiki
>   page
>   ... should have more of a report next week
>
>
>   <eric_carlson> Media TextAssociations wiki page:
>   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations

Also note:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI

[snip]

> Media Issues
>
>   <MikeSmithX>
>   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&keywords=media
>
>   MS: half-hour left
>   ... previous URI has media and a11y keywords
>   ... neeed to determine which ones are highest priority; ones that are
>   higher are 5758
>
>   <MikeSmithX> 5758 insufficient accessibility fallback for <audio> or
>   <video>
>
>   <MikeSmithX> 8187 Section 4.8.7 on video makes no reference to audio
>   description
>
>   MS: second with high priority 8187
>   ... discuss those 2 today
>   ... some feedback on list about this
>
>   <MikeSmithX>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Feb/0035.html
>
>   MS: sylvia can't be on call due to time differences, but sent very
>   good response
>   ... sylvia said that 5758 is an open issue for discussion in media
>   sub-group
>   ... sylvia had comments on 5758 -- 1 comment that applies to all we do
>   is getting someone to take ownership of writing a concrete proposal

I'm happy to take that ownership - we've already basically done this as a group.


>   ... sylvia also mentioned implementations
>   ... as far as 8187, sylvia said that she considers this unresolved --
>   MCooper do you concur?

s/unresolved/resolved/


>   <eric_carlson> +1 from me as well
>
>   MC: don't feel qualified to concur or not concur, but willing to take
>   as reservation; some bugs resolved as "fixed" if sylvia concurs, that
>   is a plus 1 that i will accept
>
>   MS: comments on other issues; under control and don't require
>   attention of entire TF because no one objected to proposed resolution
>
>   MC: sylvia seemed to bump 5758 up in priority; accept her ok for
>   others
>
>   MS: will tag these as a11y
>
>   MC: remove others from a11y tf mailing list
>
>   MS: getting baack to 5758 - seems to be highest priority
>   ... comments on how to move forward on this expeditiously

Drafts exist:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI

My proposed next steps were:
1. finalise specification drafts in subgroup
2. solicit feedback from larger task force
3. have phone hook up in subgroup to agree on specifications
4. have phone hook up in subgroup to agree on specifications
5. start demo implementations
6. improve specifications as feedback from implementations comes in
7. continue communication in subgroup / task force
8. when task force agrees on mature state, propose to working group


>   [silence]
>
>   MS: want to get something concrete out of this
>   ... eric, can you give some insight about progress on issue -- seems
>   to be linked to what discussed earlier
>
>   EC: which issue?
>
>   MS: 5758 - fallback for video and audio
>
>   EC: specifically the issue we've discussed; to address, first need to
>   find further API on audio and video element so script has access to
>   info about what kind of media is in media file, so can decide what to
>   enable and what to disable for users' need; concentrating on this
>   first because fundamental to solution
>
>   MS: anything blocking progress other than limit of amount of time
>
>   EC: time; sylvia mentioned we need to set up media telecons, we've
>   been doing it all via email so far; at point where talking would move
>   forward
>
>   MS: anything anyone in TF or media group can do to expedite?
>
>   EC: not yet
>
>   MS: please follow up on list with this -- if can find time to talk by
>   phone let chairs know
>
>   SH: question: direction EC outlining is about working with content -
>   means not a fallback in sense if i don't understand this content what
>   do i do?
>   ... a11y info NOT a fallback, but part of the media; it is not
>   fallback, am i missing something?

The wording of the title of that bug is incorrect. It is not asking
about a fallback. As the comments on the bug progress, you will notice
it is about caption, subtitle, audio description, sign language and
similar support - both embedded in stream and external.

Other issues the bug mentions are:
* choice of a baseline code - not something we can make any progress on
* video fallback where video is not supported - already possible
* non-synchronised text alternatives - already possible through
putting text or a link next to the video (and possibly using
aria-describedBy)
* access to captions/subtitles in media files that browser does not
support (e.g. MPEG in Firefox) - this wasn't expressly mentioned, but
it is simply not technically possible
* @alt attribute - has been discussed in WHATWG, see thread at
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-August/021865.html;
basically, the following attributes already provide what is required:
@title, @aria-label, @aria-describedby

Somebody with knowledge on ARIA in HTML5 should probably check whether
aria attributes are enabled for audio and video elements. My reading
of the current HTML5 draft says that the aria attributes are available
for media elements without restrictions.

So, in summary - the remaining issues of bug 5758 are dealing with
synchronised captions, subtitles, audio descriptions, and sign
language, both where this data is embedded with the media resource and
where it comes as a separate resource. These are the issues we are
addressing in the media sub-group.


>   EC: may be incorrectly titled issue; 1 of the issues is that media
>   file can have alternate representations of its content - audio, audio
>   and video, audio video sub-titles, alternate version s of audio file
>   or video file; how to expose info in a media file so that scropt can
>   configure file to display info according to user's needs
>
>   SH: no objection to that, just pointing out that that is NOT a
>   fallback
>
>   EC: more work needs to be done, no doubt, but that is starting point
>   we chose
>   ... either bug incorrectly titled, or need a new bug describing
>   problem working on now
>
>   SH: 2 bugs - what to do for fallback and what do about exposing
>   various components
>
>   MS: worth adding comment to bug issue or Sean can raise additional bug
>   just to make clear
>   ... title is imprecise -- seems clear that scope of bug is part of,
>   but not complete, solution; short term priority is work on that part
>   of solution because momentum built
>   ... would be good for whole TF to meet in alternate time to accomodate
>   those who can't attend current time
>
>   MC: should investigate options, but may want to have media sub-group
>   have own calls like CANVAS sub-group
>
>   MS: greater wider task force needs to be filled in on what media
>   issues are, what is being persued, what needs to be persued; talking
>   with sylvia in real-time would be invaluable
>   ... never going to find time that works for everybody, but need to
>   make effort to enable those working on media to talk

We're doing good work on the mailing list - so far a conference call
has not been necessary. But as outlined above in the next steps, I
think we should have one soon in the subgroup.


>   MC: will follow up with MS and JS
>
>   MS: week after next would like a detailed media update

Eric is giving good feedback on our progress. But I will try to be up
at 3am for that call - no promises. I do have a son that needs to get
to school at 6:30am.


>   MK: question regarding audio/video - alternative not fallback content
>   -- implementing API for content, isn't it feasible as long as devs and
>   implementors haven't agreed on video or subtitle format
>
>   EC: video and audio independent of work we are doing; whether vendor
>   supports 1 format or another, media files still have logical concept
>   of track - streams of diff formats of media in a file (audio, video,
>   captions, etc.) API would be higher level abstract way for media
>   element to allow script to configure media contained in file
>   ... since captions data needs to be exposed via script, need to come
>   up with recommendation on how that might work - we are addressing that
>   directly

Indeed, for the API there is no need to discuss formats. But for the
external subtitle/caption files, there is a need to discuss format.

>From our discussions at TPAC, I was under the impression that DFXP is
the way to go with SRT being a really simple representaton of DFXP and
also to be supported. But I will start a new email thread to discuss
this.


>   MS: questions, comments?
>
>   <MikeSmithX>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Feb/0035.html
>
>   MS: end of discussion of media for today -- any other media folks have
>   comments, please post them to the list and reply to above post from
>   sylvia
>
>   <MikeSmithX> 8659 Media events to indicate captions and audio
>   descriptions
>
>   MS: only other 1 being worked on actively is 8659 about events
>   ... not sure if anything to discuss; discussion on mailing list about
>   timing model which is what this relates to
>
>   EC: does it make sense to expose events floated on list, but don't
>   recall a reply
>
>   MS: 1 thing from Dave Singer is comment on bug - is this really right
>   way to solve problem was question he raised
>   ... weren't any responses
>   ... will poke dave to have him re-ask question to solicit responses
>   ... nothing else in discussion; no direct reply to DSinger's message,
>   rest of discussion didn't touch on DS' question so is still open
>   ... can ask DSinger to update us on it
>   ... resolve for today about set of issues: 2 we need to keep open as
>   issues for a11y TF are 8659 and 5758
>   ... rest of issues, remain open in bugzilla -- anyone welcome to
>   discuss or follow up on them;

Sorry, but I wasn't able to see a comment by Dave Singer on but 8659,
only by Philip Jagenstedt. I agree with Philip and an API is much more
useful, which is what we are now working on. There are still other
open issues, such as cue ranges, but I do not see an urgency to
solving these right now.


Best Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 22:43:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:01 GMT