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

[media] Minutes of today's teleconference

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:48:17 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTik8Xk3RYrnn5G4BHKJda2Q-Y8zsemNhvfeynkYo@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
The minutes of the media subgroup of today's accessibility task force
meeting are now available at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/07/28-html-a11y-minutes.html and below.

Regards,
Silvia.

- DRAFT -HTML-A11Y telecon28 Jul 2010

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2010/07/28-html-a11y-irc>
Attendees
PresentJudy, John_Foliot, Janina, Plh, +61.2.801.2.aaaa, Silvia RegretsChair
John_FoliotScribesilvia
Contents

   - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2010/07/28-html-a11y-minutes.html#agenda>
   - Summary of Action
Items<http://www.w3.org/2010/07/28-html-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

------------------------------

<janina> agenda: this

1. Action Item Review

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

<scribe> scribe: silvia

judy: can we pick up an action item for pairs of people to do edits to the
requirements document

 I have a few more edits to do in the next few days

silvia: I have edited all of the items that Sean and I had to do

 only the extended captions section could do with a group discussion

 to have a better grasp on what features we need

JF: we have discussed it over the last weeks on the calls, though the
minutes may not have everythings

Janina: I think we have discussed extended descriptions, but not extended
captions

Judy: let's add it to the agenda

Janina: can do after action item 2

JF: Eric and my feedback still has to go into the wiki

2. Summary--User Requirements and Technical Implications

Janina: review the summary that Janina posted

 maybe lets discuss the use case for extended captioning first

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Extended_Time-aligned_Text_Cues

silvia: it is now called extended time-aligned text cues and not any more
extended captioning

 the idea behind it is to allow people that have slower reading speed and
need more explanation about the captions to get this information from the
stream

 things like pausing at the end of a cue to catch up on reading

 and having links to abbreviation explanations etc

Janina: this should be something that should be available to normal
captions, too

 I don't see it necessary to have it separate

Judy: the title needs to be reformulated - "cue"s are more like events and
not captions

JF: I actually like the idea of removing the word "caption" because the use
cases go far beyond just caption users

Judy: we haven't removed the general caption section, so that may be ok
... literacy level of hearing and vision impaired people in comparison to
the general population is very different in different countries

Janina: it's not necessary to talk about this in the document

JF: it's not a technical issue

Janina: if the distinction between captions and this section has to do with
more extra content beyond dialog, I'm not sure it's necessary

 pause content & review is a need

 hyperlinks is a need

silvia: there is a separate section for these extensions because there is
new functionality that is not traditionally understood under the keyword
"caption"

Janina: I don't see that we need a different file format for this

JF: no, we don't need a new file format for this, but we need extra
functionality

Janina: it doesn't change the timeline, it just introduces pauses

Judy: let's not get bogged down into too much detail

 maybe we need to have an offline discussion on this

JF: I believe we're at the point where we wanted to do a review of Janina's
technical requirements email

<janina>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0126.html

Janina: in the process of discussing in recent weeks, I came up with these
terms

JF: are there any holes?

Janina: I am becoming strongly convinced that extended captions and captions
are the same file

 other than that I think we are complete

JF: are we at the point where the requirements document can be sent up the
foodchain?

 do we need to make this email a more formal document?

Judy: it would be good to get feedback from those not in the meeting

 also, we should look at the different format options

 we had laied out last week what comes next

JF: we said that once we were happy about the requirements doc, we would
take another look at the technical implications

 discuss XML formats

 discuss streaming implications

<Judy> judy confirms that we still have user requirement edits to complete.

<JF>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Extended_Time-aligned_Text_Cues

silvia: to some extend we need to finish editing the user requirements
before we can specify the detailed technical requirements

 Janina's email is a great summary document on the technical conclusions

scribe: it would be good to turn that into a document in the wiki, too

 in addition, we can go through the user requirements document and add some
small technical conclusions on each requirement

Judy: I'm hoping we can get the details in the wiki asap we can move forward
with discussions on file format

silvia: what makes this even more urgent is that Ian has now included a file
format and media a11y solution into the HTML5 spec

 even if the file format is only in the WHATWG spec - it has had influence
on the general solution

JF: timeline and milestones are indeed important

 but we need to answer the open questions

Janina: if I understand silvia correctly, it makes sense to put a bit more
effort into the requirements document to have the individual requirements in
the document

silvia: I don't think it's much extra effort - we have discussed all of
these details already

 as I was editing the wiki and included the feedback from the
questionnaire, I have included technical notes underneath the individual
user requirements to give better understanding to technical people what the
user needs actually mean

 this doesn't need a new document, but just dense notes underneath the
individual user requirements

 but an extra document that captures the high-level technical conclusions
that Janina has summarised would be good

JF: Eric and I have been discussing the technical consequences of the user
requirements, too

 we should indeed put the summary page into the wiki

Janina: anyone against including the summary page into the wiki?

 I'm in favor of it and I hope we can pull this all together real soon

JF: I'll create the wiki page

3. Starting a Technical Gap Analysis

JF: do we want to spend the next 25 min on this?

silvia: what do we mean by "technical gap analysis"? does it mean we compare
the current HTML5 spec with our requirements to identify gaps?

JF: yes, probably

general discussion about approach

 it seems the group agrees to discourage browser vendors at this stage from
implementing anything

 we as a group need to do a good analysis of what is being proposed

 we as a group also need to analyse alternatives of what is being proposed

 we should also invite others to explain how the current spec is meeting
our user requirements

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibility/Video_Text_Format <- is an
alternative format that I am playing with

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibility/Video_Text_Format_Comparison

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to address John's question and to

silvia: I've been experimenting with the above format and comparing to other
options to find out about advantages/disadvantages

JF: I think it's important that we can show that we are indeed looking at
other options

silvia: also note there is a new subtitling format in development in the
subtitling community called AS6

<Judy> judy will get back to wrap up of user requirement edits, to finish
that

JF: ongoing action items for user requirements edits

<scribe>  new wiki page to add with summary on technical requirements

<janina> OK!

<janina> Thanks, Silvia!

<janina> let me try again ...
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 23:49:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:13 GMT