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

Re: [media] Minutes of today's teleconference

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:05:58 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinfY8bac75S80JWZp0po35q1ay4EbPofF02FGE1@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
The wiki page with the summary technical requirements is now at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Tech_Requirements

Regards,
Silvia.


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 Regrets
> ChairJohn_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 Thursday, 29 July 2010 02:06:54 GMT

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