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

RE: Media Subteam Teleconference Minutes, 8 September

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:04:33 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8DEFC0D8B72E054E97DC307774FE4B9131552FDA@DB3EX14MBXC315.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
1.       I basically Concur, although it would need to remove specific reference to WebSRT. I'm not sure if the intention was ever to use the <track> element as  a pointer to a non-text resource, but if it is then the kind attribute may need to be able to distinguish between text and audio descriptions. I'm also a little concerned about the charset attribute, but I don't think that needs to impede progress.

2.       Again concur, removing the references to WebSRT; and also remove the writing direction, snap-to-lines, line position, text position, alignment properties and generalise the voice identifier to a list. The text of the cue should be a possibly styled HTML fragment.

3.       I think the rendering rules are way too complicated, and WebSRT specific and should not be transferred at this time. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a placeholder for it.

From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: 09 September 2010 02:11
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Re: Media Subteam Teleconference Minutes, 8 September

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<mailto: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<mailto:sip%3Ajanina@asterisk.rednote.net>

Chair, Open Accessibility       janina@a11y.org<mailto: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 16:05:19 UTC

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