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

Re: Minutes from HTML-A11Y Media Subteam, February 9

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:15:54 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikSHe1XvVYYyRQysM7c=VfCPmsVnFh-v9KgkPyD@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Note the following typo: s/SYMPTI TT/SMPTE-TT/

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> Minutes from the HTML-A11Y Task Force's Media Subteam teleconference are
> provided below as text. They're also available as html at:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-html-a11y-minutes.html
>
>   W3C
>
>                                                           - DRAFT -
>
>                                                       HTML-A11Y telecon
>
> 09 Feb 2011
>
>   See also: IRC log
>
> Attendees
>
>   Present
>          Silvia, John, janina, Eric, Judy
>
>   Regrets
>          Sean, Geoff
>
>   Chair
>          John_Foliot
>
>   Scribe
>          janina
>
> Contents
>
>     * Topics
>         1. Identify Scribe
>         2. Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
>         3. Issue-152 Multitrack API http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0079.html
>         4. Time Tracks Feedback from Google http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html
>         5. Are we done with Time Tracks?
>         6. Poster Issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0054.html
>     * Summary of Action Items
>     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>   <scribe> agenda: this
>
> Identify Scribe
>
>   <scribe> scribe: janina
>
> Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
>
>   <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
>
>   <JF> action-96
>
>   <silvia> clost action-88
>
>   <silvia> close action-88
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-88 Review Media Fragment URI 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100624/ closed
>
>   <silvia> action-96?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-96 -- Eric Carlson 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
>
>   close action-96
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-96 Media Sub Team to revisit bug 11395 (Use media queries to select appropriate <track> elements)
>   closed
>
>   <silvia> Dave and Eric decided it would be too complex to extend media queries for this purpose
>
>   <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-152 Multitrack API http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0079.html
>
>   Silvia: WG wants change proposals by Feb 21
>   ... Has a proposal, asking for feedback
>
>   <silvia> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API
>
>   Silvia: I prefer solution #1
>   ... People should read the wiki and indicate their preferences
>   ... Also a proposal that defines a position on screen for the element (which can be changed with CSS)
>   ... Microsoft had been for option #2
>   ... We need continued discussion, as different people prefer different solutions
>
>   Eric: Will do so later today
>   ... Favoring option #2 with mod of having src element inside track to accomodate different encodings
>   ... I've pinged Frank, but not heard back yet
>
>   John: Asking about #7
>   ... is it correct that sign video track would be positioned using css?
>   ... PIP might be too smal on handhel, no?
>   ... Wereas, if independent, could do better sizing
>
>   Silvia: Yes, that's an advantage of #7
>   ... These are some of the points it would be good to see on list
>
>   Eric: Why can't that also via track element?
>
>   Silvia: Would imply too fundamental changes, currently track only renders on viewport and nowhere else on page
>   ... Track currently can't have children
>   ... Don't know if that's open to mod in the WG?
>
>   Eric: Suspect we'll discuss any of these in the WG, even though it's late in the timeline, it's just been postponed
>
>   John: Didn't we identify a user req to position anywhere?
>
>   Eric: Yes, but not possible with spec as it is now
>
>   Silvia: Would be through js
>   ... So, possible but not simple
>   ... Proposing to widden the discussion
>
>   Judy: Proposing it should be on the W3C list
>   ... It's a critical piece of getting a11y addressed in W3C, so wouldn't make sense to not have it on W3C
>
>   Silvia: Problem is I've had no response on the W3C list
>
>   Judy: So, we should figure how to get the discussion going
>
>   Silvia: No reason to take it off, but should not be a problem widdening the discussion
>   ... Just wonder if it makes sense to post to the WG list
>
>   Judy: Maybe that's why there's no response yet.
>
>   John: My concern is to avoid multiple discussions, too many gotchya possibilities.
>
>   Silvia: I'll keep track and report, but I want more opinions.
>
>   Eric: Agree, this topic is too important
>   ... We had this discussion sometime ago, and it's not progressing.
>
>   Judy: Thought the reason it's been silent is that more work was anticipated? Not so?
>
>   Silvia: The "More work part" is more discussion.
>   ... Don't want a solution that's had too little vetting.
>   ... I don't mean anything official--just to communicate what we're considering.
>
>   Judy: Important point is that we need to move forward and have a wider discussion
>
>   John: Do we revisit this next week? With the sense of a decision from the TF?
>
>   Silvia: Makes sense.
>
>   John: OK, any more on this?
>
>   Judy: One question: Given discussion is being raised in the broader group, has there been any feedback that we should
>   chase down?
>
>   Janina: Yes, we should solicit feedback from a11y people with experience on this, NCAM, DAISY, etc
>
>   John: More on this?
>
> Time Tracks Feedback from Google http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html
>
>   John: An executive overview?
>
>   Silvia: So, I'm currently contracted to Google and have been working on this ...
>   ... Teams from Chrome, YouTube, a11y, looking at WebSRT, track element
>   ... Checked out 608 and 708 (used in U.S.)
>   ... We're happy about a name change from WebSRT to WebVTT, in good part because SRT has negative reputation around
>   copyright infringement
>
>   Judy: Question: When looking at U.S. reqs, were you looking at the FCC reqs?
>
>   Silvia: At Google's reqs
>   ... The two existing standards for captions on TV
>   ... These have limited set of features, insufficient for our reqs
>   ... But, we want to replicate everything in 608 and 708
>
>   Judy: Yes, but my question is different ...
>   ... Since you're looking at U.S. reqs, did you consider the FCC VPAAC reqs. You're aware of VPAAC?
>
>   Silvia: Unaware they've produced a req doc?
>   ... Understand only a general req
>
>   Eric: General req to carry captions in current broadcast video when broadcast over Internet
>   ... Sounds like they have basis to believe it will meet reqs from VPAAC
>
>   Judy: There are also issues about emergency crawls, voicing of those, etc. including on the web
>   ... The reqs aren't mapped in the statute, but my impression is that there will be more reqs than previous practice
>
>   Silvia: So, I guess the answer is: "No, we didn't look at that."
>
>   Eric: Google is on the committee, yes?
>
>   Judy: Yes, but the committee's barely started. Only one meeting so far, and there's not yet been an opportunity to get
>   a fuller understanding
>   ... Geoff did post his understanding that FCC would not mandate a protocol for this
>   ... There may be some clarification to that, as the charge for VPAAC is to produce guidance
>
>   Silvia: So, the email summarizes our results ...
>   ... Discusses gaps on WebVTT -- also what we want to see improved
>   ... I'm currently working on a js implementation for all this
>   ... Think we're currently converging on changes needed to WebVTT, and they're not very large
>
>   John: Anything we need to consider?
>
>   Silvia: Don't think so--if any questions, happy to involve everyone in a discussion
>
>   John: Duplicate track? Not sure what the answer should be? Is there?
>
>   Silvia: Philip responded duplicate is same lang and same type format; answer just display both in the menu
>
>   Janina: Because independent alternate media authors may have produced a second version, same lang, same type
>
>   Eric: Correct, but spec says only one, and that's guidance for authors
>   ... Text is just guidance for authors, so from that perspective it's reasonable
>
>   John: Should we seek better spec?
>   ... To specifically say that both should be made available in the menu?
>
>   Silvia: Sounds like a reasonable bug, and makes it easier to conform across browsers
>
>   John: Just thinking of making things as robust as possible
>   ... Might as well get it into the spec, rather than by precedent, because there could be not so great precedent
>
>   Janina: Agree
>
>   John: I'll file
>
>   <JF> silvia, are you still on IRC?
>
>   John: Anything else?
>
>   Silvia: Would ask people to read through our results and respond with their thoughts.
>
> Are we done with Time Tracks?
>
>   John: Anything more we should say?
>
>   Judy: Let me try ... On the broader question
>   ... The question remains a concern. There may be no other way, and considering the impace downstream is important ...
>   ... Is there a point for this group to comment?
>
>   John: That's the question.
>   ... Market forces will decide what each browser does ...
>
>   Judy: But, there's also continued discussion re our reqs
>
>   Eric: I have concerns with SMPTE-TT, now that I've read the spec, from an a11y perspective, specifically with
>   background image handling
>
>   Judy: Agree there are things to look at there
>   ... My understanding is that VPAAC won't mandate, but will comment on appropriatness of various options
>
>   <silvia> +q
>
>   Judy: Understand there are strong leanings on the part of some stakeholders
>   ... We're also looking at this in W3C
>   ... Curious to learn more about the background image issue
>   ... W3C needs to be responsive to the entire field--all stakeholders
>
>   Eric: Not sure that background is necessarily harmful to a11y, but analgous to CSS background-image--and we should have
>   a discussion
>
>   Judy: Agree we should understand it better. Let's do
>
>   Eric: Happy to do so
>
>   Silvia: Done a prelim on SYMPTE TT; agree with Eric, unclear what we get if we use it
>   ... If I understand correctly, one key purpose is to get legacy content onto the web with captions, using Internet as a
>   transport, not necessarily as web content
>   ... It's an exchange format, so makes sense to use for encapsulating and transporting; But that doesn't necessarily
>   imply presentation
>
>   Judy: Curious to explore something on this ...
>   ... Understand that's the basis of their approach, have heard this elsewhere as well
>   ... Not as convinced that some of the broadcast people aren't also looking at using it on the web
>   ... Are you certain that there aren't already entities forseeing use of TT for web delivery?
>   ... Don't think this answers what W3C should do, just trying to clarify our understanding of where people are coming
>   from
>
>   Silvia: I was trying to understand how the SYMPTE standard came to be
>   ... e.g. there aqre binary captions in legacy content
>   ... Transformational and transport formats aren't necessarily the best choices for web presentation
>   ... We have to deal with the converging world, and we have these two groups coming from different perspectives
>   ... Don't know if we can consolidate the two
>   ... May be delivered across the net, but not delivered via a browser
>
>   Judy: Very helpful, Silvia. I appreciate your perspective.
>
>   Janina: Suspect browser will emerge because there are also a11y reqs on the user interface now
>
>   John: Or plugins, which I expect
>
>   Judy: Several people are wondering about convergence possibilities
>
>   John: With a few minutes left, I want to recap ...
>   ... Judy, you mentioned a two week timeline?
>
>   Judy: W3C is participating on the VPAAC, we're there to be helpful and explain what we're working on, but we don't have
>   a position
>   ... We'd like to bring info as up to date and as useful as possible, so very interested in our analysis of SYMPTE TT vs
>   W3C TTML
>   ... Then the a11y relevance
>   ... So, the possibility of convergence before many years go by with people working in different formats, that's an
>   important question.
>
>   John: Specifically we've a pressing timeline for multitrack api, just thinking in terms of time alltoment here
>
>   Judy: Don't have a good answer right now.
>   ... Perhaps 20 minutes on the SMPTE next week? Three of us have looked at it already?
>
>   <Judy> s/SYMPI/SMPT/
>
>   Silvia: Suggesting Eric and I look more closely at SMPTE-TT, and also Judy, so we should discuss it
>
>   John: Just concerned we conclude on multitrack
>
>   akim, next item
>
> Poster Issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0054.html
>
>   John: Nothing to add ...
>
>   Janina: Pf interested that we have screenshots to mark up for the two proposals, that we not leave this to a handwave
>
>   rrsagent make minutes
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>   [End of minutes]
>     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Found Scribe: janina
> Regrets: Sean, Geoff
>
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                sip:janina@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, 10 February 2011 00:16:48 GMT

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