W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2011

Re: [Minutes] Media Sub Team of the Accessibility Task Force - Feb 2., 2011

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:27:31 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinbuBsUEb1w7sSGTtiANpsz9DYgDizMyYv=pu4O@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
Cc: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Apologies if i seemed off topic, but Eric explained it well.

I was just questioning the implicit statement that were made in the
teleconference, firstly that SMPTE-TT has widespread support and
secondly that it surely will become the specification of choice by the
FCC. Since the FCC process has only just started, I was hoping there
would be a bit more technical needs analysis and judgement of where
things are going. I could, for example, fully understand if the FCC
chose both SMPTE-TT and WebVTT as standards for the Internet and the
Web respectively. I wouldn't understand if the reasoning that the
browser vendors chose to oppose TTML was ignored and SMPTE-TT chosen
by default.

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Matt May wrote:
>
>> I fail to see how this has anything to do with accessibility, or SMPTE, or timed text.
>>
>  I guess you missed the telecon.
>
>  Silvia asked if SMPTE-TT was widely tested (or even deployed) yet. Geoff said that there was little implementation so far but held up UltraViolet as a "major" supporter:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> Silvia: SMPTE TT is a new format, how much content is currently available
>>>
>>> Geoff: there is not yet a lot of implementation, but there is one major
>>> support - UltraViolet - which is a DRM-like solution to view content from
>>> the cloud
>>>
>>
>
>  It isn't really reflected in the meeting minutes, but Geoff stressed the multi-vendor buy-in for UltraViolet as an indication that SMPTE-TT would have wide adoption and acceptance.
>
> eric
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
>> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:40 AM
>> To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
>> Subject: Re: [Minutes] Media Sub Team of the Accessibility Task Force - Feb 2., 2011
>>
>> As is my nature, I am curious about the FCC and SMPTE-TT work. So,
>> I've looked around a bit.
>>
>> Ultraviolet is a cloud-based DRM system standardized by a consortium
>> of Movie studios, Sony, Adobe Systems, Cisco, HP, Microsoft, Neustar,
>> Intel and several others, see http://www.uvvu.com/alliance-members.php
>> . It is not available anywhere yet. Not part of the consortium are,
>> amongst others, Apple and Google (should that tell us that it's not
>> about the Web?). It's still questionable whether it will be the DRM
>> system of choice for the market once it comes out, but certainly many
>> are working towards that.
>>
>> Anyway - it seems there is a lot happening around specifications for
>> Internet services - whether it's all good for the Web is a very
>> different question for me. Is the FCC actually looking at Web
>> standards or is it only concerned with TV services when delivered over
>> the Internet (not the Web)? Actually, even their mission statement
>> never uses the word "Web" and only every talks about Internet. I
>> wonder how much their agenda is driven by the TV and Movie industry
>> rather than native online services.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Silvia.
>> (speaking all for myself here)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> The minutes from the 2 February 2011 Media Sub Team can be accessed as
>>> hypertext from:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/02/02-html-a11y-minutes.html
>>>
>>> ...and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please
>>> report any errors, clarifications, mis-attributions, and the like by
>>> replying-to this announcement on-list
>>>
>>> JF
>>>
>>> *****
>>>
>>> HTML-A11Y telecon
>>> 02 Feb 2011
>>>
>>> See also: IRC log
>>> Attendees
>>>
>>> Present
>>> Regrets
>>> Chair
>>>    Janina_Sajka
>>> Scribe
>>>    JF
>>>
>>> Contents
>>>
>>>    * Topics
>>>         1. Identify Scribe
>>>         2. Actions Review
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
>>>         3. Time Tracks Feedback from Google
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html
>>>    * Summary of Action Items
>>>
>>> <janina> agenda: this
>>> Identify Scribe
>>>
>>> <scribe> scribe: JF
>>> Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
>>>
>>> <silvia> close Action-98
>>>
>>> <trackbot> ACTION-98 Create a statement with geoff to forward need for
>>> caption and description techniques for wcag closed
>>>
>>> JF: re Action 98, posted draft to the list for CFC, and no feedback
>>> received
>>>
>>> should forward to the appropriate stake holders
>>>
>>> <silvia> Action-88?
>>>
>>> <trackbot> ACTION-88 -- Sean Hayes to review Media Fragment URI 1.0
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100624/ -- due 2010-11-24 --
>>> OPEN
>>>
>>> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/88
>>>
>>> <silvia> Action-96?
>>>
>>> <trackbot> ACTION-96 -- John Foliot to media Sub Team to revisit bug 11395
>>> (Use media queries to select appropriate <track> elements) -- due
>>> 2011-01-06 -- OPEN
>>>
>>> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/96
>>>
>>> Re: Action 88 - will leave as is, needs to go back to PF
>>>
>>> <Sean> can you make the due date on 88 end of March
>>>
>>> Issue 96 reassign to Eric Carlson
>>>
>>> <silvia> close Action-97
>>>
>>> <trackbot> ACTION-97 Follow up on bug #9673 closed
>>>
>>> Issue 97 - to be closed
>>>
>>> <silvia> Action-99?
>>>
>>> <trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Janina Sajka to annotate 9452 with clear audio
>>> discovery and selection, as well as independent control of multiple
>>> playback tracks -- due 2011-01-19 -- OPEN
>>>
>>> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/99
>>>
>>> Issue 99
>>> Time Tracks Feedback from Google
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html
>>>
>>> Ad agenda item - overview of FCC status/situation
>>>
>>> <Judy> http://www.fcc.gov/cib/dro/VPAAC/
>>>
>>> Judy: VPAAC - Video Programming Accessibility Action Commitee
>>>
>>> recommend to look at the Mission Statement (Word Doc:
>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303943A1.doc)
>>>
>>> meetings and actions with tight time-lines around video accessibility -
>>> captioning and descriptive audio
>>>
>>> some awareness of work that is happening at W3C
>>>
>>> Janina: interested to understand what this applies to, penalties, etc.
>>>
>>> Geoff: there will also be rules about amount of video description as well
>>> as requirements for emergency information
>>>
>>> they are also looking at getting television shows already captioned for
>>> on-air broadcast, must also move to the web
>>>
>>> this now involves SMPTE
>>>
>>> and SMPTE TT will likey emerge as a recommendation from the committee
>>>
>>> Janina: unless we find accessibility issues with this
>>>
>>> this will potentially inovolve massive amounts of programming (TV shows)
>>>
>>> including older content as well as future content
>>>
>>> +q
>>>
>>> <silvia> +q
>>>
>>> Judy: can we get differences between SMPTE TT (which is a derivitive of
>>> TTML)
>>>
>>> adds the ability to add background images, as well as binary data
>>>
>>> also some additional metadata content
>>>
>>> JF: are broadcasters aware of the browser vendors will or wont support?
>>>
>>> Sean: we can already support, doesn't require native support for this to
>>> work. will likely wait to see how the market plays out
>>>
>>> Silvia: SMPTE TT is a new format, how much content is currently available
>>>
>>> Geoff: there is not yet a lot of implementation, but there is one major
>>> support - UltraViolet - which is a DRM-like solution to view content from
>>> the cloud
>>>
>>> since SMPTE TT is based on TTML, there is potential for growth
>>>
>>> Eric: is SMPTE a full profile subset of TTML?
>>>
>>> Sean: yes
>>>
>>> Judy: with this superset nature of SMPTE TT to what extent are the added
>>> features - things that align with accessibility user requirements that
>>> we've uncovered?
>>>
>>> Sean: the addition of images was from a request from asian territories
>>>
>>> they would rather not use actual fonts, and rather have images as more
>>> 'hand-drawn' character-sets
>>>
>>> the binary data is mostly for commercial requirements, for set-top boxes,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> not really for user-benefit, but rather operator-benefit
>>>
>>> Janina: one of the other things coming from the FCC work is requirements
>>> for devices being sold in the US market, there will be more of these types
>>> of devices, and more regs to follow
>>>
>>> <kenny_j> Need to drop off the call for another meeting. bye all.
>>>
>>> Synopsis of questions re: time Tracks
>>>
>>> Silvia: the track element allows us to associate external caption files,
>>> sub-title files and other text files to videos
>>>
>>> Judy: is there a mechanism that can discover those assets
>>>
>>> +q
>>>
>>> ERic: the track element is for things that have timing with them
>>>
>>> so if the description has timing info thta needs to be displayed in sync
>>> with the video, then it is appropriate to use track element
>>>
>>> Sean: we've identified that there is no mechanism for labeling a
>>> transcript as such - there is no semantic link-up at this time
>>>
>>> <gfreed> geoff needs to go-- will read the minutes later this evening.
>>>
>>> Judy: a case can be made that access to a transcript would serve certain
>>> user needs for a11y
>>>
>>> +q
>>>
>>> Janina: we've identified that if there is timing data, that it should be
>>> linked to the video, but even if a transcript has no timing it may need to
>>> be programmatically associated to the video none-the-less
>>>
>>> Judy: the order of presentation /positioning
>>>
>>> that has been a problem in the past
>>>
>>> if we are trying to support multple media formats - foolproof
>>> discoverablility and sharability
>>>
>>> discussion about discoverability versus mechanisms for delivery
>>>
>>> ERic: discussion is not that there is disagreement on this, but how we
>>> deliver it - in sync (with time)
>>>
>>> it makes no sense to try and repurpose track and source for
>>> non-time-aligned content
>>>
>>> how does the content author package it
>>>
>>> Judy: so do we need another element?
>>>
>>> <silvia> s-
>>>
>>> given that we are under a very tight timeline at this point?
>>>
>>> eric: don't think we need a different/new element
>>>
>>> echos silvia's observation thta at transcript would be avialable for all
>>> users
>>>
>>> +Q
>>>
>>> <Judy> eric: you could just do the association with an attribute
>>>
>>> <Judy> jf: that would take us down the same path as with longdesc
>>>
>>> <Judy> ...we need to be able to package the transcript in some way that
>>> makes it available to users, not just visible on screen
>>>
>>> <silvia> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API
>>>
>>> Janina: bottom line is that we do not have a means of associating a
>>> transcript to a the video resource
>>>
>>> whether an element or an attribute
>>>
>>> silvia are you on mute?
>>>
>>> <janina> Silvia, we don't hear you
>>>
>>> <Sean> try redialling. not hearing you
>>>
>>> Judy: we should record everything we can in terms of what is still open
>>>
>>> Silvia: we should have an email discussion on transcript
>>>
>>> (JF will check for that bug and post to the list)
>>>
>>> eric: when the durations are not the same - it's not an issue when they
>>> are not the same, but rather when the internal timing information are not
>>> the same
>>>
>>> when segments of one don't exactly overlap segments of the other
>>>
>>> there is no way of describing those associations
>>>
>>> Silvia: on the multi-track API
>>>
>>> summarize from discussions and an email thread from last fall - will
>>> summarize into a wiki page for further discussion
>>>
>>> we re-start a new mail thread
>>>
>>> Janina, another isue is if the user wants to control the secondary content
>>> - change font size, colors, adjust audio levels, etc.
>>>
>>> Janina: on one hand, this is very specific to Operating Systems
>>>
>>> but what we should be discussing is a systematic way for authors to create
>>> content, and signify this to the browser
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 23:28:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:31 GMT