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

Re: Media Subteam Teleconference Minutes, 8 September

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:10:39 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinoRWTzgfBx-bD0k-Sba7uxCpeAo51E8TPdHMkm@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
So, following on from our discussion today: I was asked to propose what we
should encourage the HTML WG to include from the WHATWG specification into
the W3C HTML5 specification.

Here is what I think should definitely be moved:

1. The <track> element
This is specified at
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#the-track-element.
This is very similar to what we originally developed in this group and has
been further developed and improved, so would be great to get into the W3C
spec for further review and improvement.

2. The Timed Text spec
This is given in
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#timed-tracks.
This is similar to what we originally developed in this group, but has had
extensive further development and improvements, so would be great to get
into the W3C spec for further review and improvement.

3. The rendering rules
This is given at
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/rendering.html#timed-tracks-0.
This is not based on anything that we developed here in this group, but it
is a logical consequence and something we do require to go hand-in-hand with
the other two.


As these are included into the W3C, it would be good to have them included
without reference to WebSRT, such that these technologies are made sure to
work even if WebSRT is not used as the baseline format. Further, this allows
us to evaluate WebSRT and other formats  as alternatives for a baseline cue
format on their own merit. If, however, removing reference to WebSRT from
these is not possible (for whatever reason), I wouldn't want that to hold up
the spec merging, since that inhibits us from have any discussion at the W3C
at all.

Cheers,
Silvia.



On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Minutes from today's HTML-A11Y Task Force Media Subteam teleconference
> are provided below in text and are available as html at:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/08-html-a11y-minutes.html
>
>   W3C
>
>                                                           - DRAFT -
>
>                                                       HTML-A11Y telecon
>
> 08 Sep 2010
>
>   See also: IRC log
>
> Attendees
>
>   Present
>          Janina, +1.408.823.aaaa, +1.650.862.aabb, John_Foliot, Judy,
> +44.154.558.aacc, Sean_Hayes, Eric_Carlson, Silvia,
>          Frank_Olivier
>
>   Regrets
>   Chair
>          John Foliot
>
>   Scribe
>          janina
>
> Contents
>
>     * Topics
>         1. Identify Scribe
>         2. Actions Review
>         3. Update re: User Requirements Status; Intro at HTML-WG Telecon
>         4. Technical Requirements Prioritizations and Dependencies:
>     * Summary of Action Items
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>   <scribe> agenda: this
>
> Identify Scribe
>
>   <scribe> scribe: janina
>
> Actions Review
>
>   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
>
>   action-52: close
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-52 Create a prioritized list due 30 august notes added
>
>   action-53: closed
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-53 Find location for ncam extended description demos
> notes added
>
>   <trackbot> If you meant to close ACTION-53, please use 'close ACTION-53'
>
>   <silvia> close ACTION-53
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-53 Find location for ncam extended description demos
> closed
>
>   <silvia> close ACTION-52
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-52 Create a prioritized list due 30 august closed
>
>   re action-54 still requires confirmation, held over
>
> Update re: User Requirements Status; Intro at HTML-WG Telecon
>
>   <JF> seems my call failed, I am logging back in
>
>   js: issues with voip presentint last week, user reqs rescheduled for this
> week
>   ... also, html-wg strongly invited to consensus around our user reqs, so
> that we will not confuse discussion of them
>   with technology solutions as we move forward.
>
>   <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist
>
> Technical Requirements Prioritizations and Dependencies:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Media_Accessibility_Checklist
>
>   jf: is this the way we should proceed?
>
>   fo: suggesting ml a primary concern
>   ... also resource identification
>
>   sp: one of the first ml expected coming from what. there are others we
> want to look at.
>   ... specifically, websrt.
>
>   fo: but, before we get to that, what's the ml like within the track?
>
>   sp: ml has gone in to the what spec, also javascript, and how to render
>   ... personally, few issues with what what has so far re ml
>
>   fo: believe the resource identification is ok--will be helpful to have
> spec text soon, esp if for ie9
>
>   sp: currently what in discussion on spec; i've been active there; ian has
> responded, and i have yet to digest his
>   response
>   ... we want to see it done right, which means we need to ramp up our work
>   ... we need to provide feedback on what we need addressed
>
>   jb: i believe the discussion needs to be happening on w3c lists, not on
> what, esp as what has not covered a11y
>   systematically
>
>   [pinging sivia! irc to silvia!]
>
>   jb: agrees with silvia that timing is essential issue, but our reqs work
> has also been essential
>   ... it will be helpful to position the main dialog of our work on w3c
> space, especially as we are coordinating on a11y
>
>   ec: what silvia is talking about is the track selection proposal which
> only exists in the what wg at this time
>
>   jb: i think it's a broader discussion than that
>   ... yes, we need to keep our pace moving forward
>
>   sh: how did the group have a discussion about text. we need to discuss
> before it goes into the spec. we can't have a
>   text mechanism without that discussion.
>   ... we need to get a proposal on the floor.
>
>   jb: i think we can achieve that via our issues and proposals.
>   ... also, we're looking at ways to adjust the tf process to help
> streamline this, though can't say more on this at this
>   time. the expectation is better process.
>
>   jf: earlier in the year we had proposals in the wiki, we set those aside
> as we revisited user reqs.
>   ... i believe we also ran a wbs against these? not sure ...
>   ... it's not that we haven't been there ...
>
>   sp: agree with everything people are saying. problem there is currently
> no spec text in w3c docs
>   ... after next what revision people are likely to start implementing
> based on what specs
>   ... this is why we need to do both.
>
>   jb: so maybe just a few more moments on process, and then we return to
> the spec text in place
>   ... suggest actioning self and janina to timeline getting spec text for
> us to consider.
>
>   jf: q, what about our 2 earlier proposals? track api, etc, are they up to
> date?
>
>   ec: text that's in what spec is all based on our docs earlier in the
> year.
>   ... ian working with silvia has refined our earlier work, refining it
> into spec text
>   ... in my opinion he has improved on our start, though it is definitely
> based on our earlier effort
>
>   sp: exactly.sp: existing text that relates to javascript api and to ml is
> ok, and should go in.
>   ... suggest proposing to integrate into w3c docs so that we can move
> forward
>
>   <silvia> the sections that should be adopted into the W3C spec are:
>
>   <silvia> * the <track> markup
>
>   <silvia> * the related JavaScript API
>
>   jf: can we ask silvia to do that on email first? so we can first discuss
> on email?
>
>   <silvia> * the related rendering section
>
>   js: we need to make sure our reqs are not defeated by this spec lang
>
>   jf: yes, so if we have it in our docs, we can take up that discussion.
>   ... we need to be very cautious, but also expeditious
>
>   jb: ok with moving building blocks forward. and thanks, frank, for
> provoking us to move forward. we're in better shape
>   on this today than a few months ago!
>
>   jf: so, can we return to the matrix?
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Media_Accessibility_Checklist
>
>   jf: currently four columns -- the bulleted item, it's identifier, the
> must/shoud/may; and the tech required for it
>   ... if we can agree on the content, then we can cross check and make
> decisions
>   ... looking at captioning, which is filled out fairly well, is this the
> way to go? is this useful?
>
>   [silence]
>
>   jf: ok, taking silence is ascent
>   ... so, how to proceed? on call? assigning sections to indivieduals?
>   ... what do our engineers think?
>
>   sp: think we should finish then we can start looking at proposed specs,
> ttml, websrt, etc
>
>   jf: but the question is how to continue with the matrix?
>   ... should we just work on the call?
>
>   sp: we should continue on email
>
>   ec: agree on email, and editing wiki, should be most expeditious
>
>   jf: so, we have a list of one word tech identifiers; should we agree a
> list that we would ascribe? or, am i
>   overthinking this.
>
>   ec: not sure.
>
>   js: suggesting a working gloss list up top, so as to be consistent in our
> identifier usage.
>
>   ec: yes
>
>   jf: suggest starting with the terms already proposed
>
>   [john is reading the current list ...]
>
>   js: do we need to distinguish video vs audio rendering
>   ... could be audio.rendering, tts.rendering, video.rendering
>
>   jf: agree distinction between types of rendering is important, and a
> dictionary list up top will be useful.
>   ... looking now for wholesale progress, not the refining points ---- at
> this time
>
>   <frankolivier> phone trouble; calling back
>
>   js: suggesting even quick and dirty defs in the gloss/dictionary would be
> helpful
>
>   ec: agree with basic gloss up top
>
>   jf: are there other tech questions we need to discuss now?
>
>   ec: no, without having seen the list, nothing is coming to mind.
>
>   jf: so we have a path, perhaps a short meeting today?
>
>   js: looking to our engineering professionals to take the lead on filling
> this out
>
>   jb: really think we need commitment, including deadlines on this
>   ... perhaps go around the room on this?
>   ... if not specific actioning, it won't happen. we're all busy with
> competing priorities.
>
>   [john raising that question around with our engineers ...]
>
>   ec: don't have much time, and it's impossible for me to commit to
> particular sections not having seen the matrix, but i
>   will spend time on it this week
>
>   sp: eric, suggest picking an area not yet marked up and go for it. i
> suggest that's how each of us should proceed.
>   ... i will do the same.
>   ... i'm particularly interested in the qtext format, for instance, but
> everything needs assessment.
>
>   sh: will take a look at it, but my ability is intermittant at the moment
> as i'm traveling this weekend.
>
>   jf: so, we've agreed progress in our larger task is facilitated by
> progress on this matrix, so we need to get this done
>
>   jb: want to ask some additional questions re process moving forward ...
>   ... talking re people on the call right now ...
>   ... willing to ask others to help
>
>   <silvia> I just had an initial go at a Glossary under the matrix:
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Glossary
>
>   sp: silvia, why am i not surprised! i love your get it done spirit!
>
>   jb: any suggestions for moving other pieces moving forward in parallel,
> please speak up
>
>   js: will ask kenny johar re struct nav and granularity
>   ... also geof freed re dv and captioning
>   ... suggest we not go too far afield looking for people to work on this,
> as it may only add confusion
>
>   sp: jim allen
>
>   jf: i'll ask jim
>
>   sp: we want to wrap this next week, if we can.
>
>   jf: yes
>
>   jb: have we forgotten our mini presentations on formats? websrt, ttml,
> etc?
>
>   sp: suggest starting with ttml next week, assuming matrix is ready,
> believe sean was on tap for ttml?
>
>   jb: sean, is that still ok?
>
>   sean, yes
>
>   sean, will take some work between the table being completed and preparing
> the presentation.
>
>   jf: user reqs have not changed
>
>   sean: but there's this table, i need to work off this table matrix
>
>   js: but what we need is a complete matrix, so the tech column can be
> sorted, dups removed, and we can build a matrix
>   showing what available techs provide, such as ttml, websrt, etc.
>
>   jf: anything else today?
>
>   js: we're done for today
>
>   jf: thanks all
>
>   jb: thanks for the wiki page.
>
>   rrsagent make minutes
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>   [End of minutes]
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net<sip%3Ajanina@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, 9 September 2010 01:11:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:13 UTC