RE: Action-219: Draft Response to MSE on Bug 23661

See the extract from the A11Y TF IRC log below in which I made some of the points in your response during the A11Y TF discussion this morning:
http://www.w3.org/2013/12/12-html-a11y-irc

> Does HTML5 have a similar note?

The TF plans to open a bug on HTML5 to cause this to happen.

> I object to adding this note to the MSE spec. This is an attempt to give weight to an accessiblity issue that should be solved by the spec that defines HTMLMediaElement behavior (ie HTML5 & HTML.next) and not an extension spec that is simply providing an alternate way to supply media to the HTMLMediaElement.

Without arguing for the TF's request I do want to point out they are only asking for the addition of a non-normative Note.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


16:34:20 [chaals]
s/Topic: ARIA/Topic: Outstanding ARIA bugs on HTML 5
16:35:14 [chaals]
JS: Anyone got comments re bug 19277?
16:35:42 [chaals]
zakim, next item
16:35:42 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "MSE Response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Dec/0051.html" taken up [from janina]
16:35:50 [chaals]
Topic: MSE response
16:36:17 [chaals]
JS: Shortly trying to go to CR. I got suggested language out, and we have a CfC to check that we are happy with that.
16:36:19 [chaals]
q+
16:36:30 [janina]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Dec/0051.html
16:36:44 [chaals]
s/http/-> http/
16:36:47 [plh]
q+ plh
16:37:06 [chaals]
s/html/html Janina's proposal/
16:37:20 [Zakim]
-Cynthia_Shelly
16:37:22 [chaals]
PLH: What is your expectation regarding timing and the outcome?
16:38:17 [paulc]
q+
16:38:37 [plh]
ack chaals
16:38:37 [paulc]
See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661#c2
16:38:40 [plh]
ack plh
16:38:44 [plh]
ack paul
16:39:26 [chaals]
CMN: Timing is intended to allow us to request an editorial change, as the resolution of our comment.
16:39:39 [chaals]
PC: Why make the comment on MSE not HTML5?
16:40:06 [chaals]
CMN: Because in MSE it explicitly talks about 1 and we want to make it clear there are important accessibility cases for allowing more than 1 video track.
16:40:23 [chaals]
JS: MSE talks about audio tracks, but only 1 track.
16:40:24 [chaals]
q+
16:40:41 [chaals]
PC: The comment notes that HTML5 doesn't define the use case and it should be defined there first.
16:40:50 [chaals]
s/comment/comment on the bug/
16:41:02 [paulc]
See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661#c2
16:42:12 [chaals]
CMN: Fully agree that this should be done for HTML5 as well, but it seems that there is greater urgency for MSE.
16:42:32 [chaals]
PC: Concerned that there will be pushback from the editors.
16:44:49 [chaals]
CMN: Sure. We have attempted to provide a rational compromise, allowing MSE to go ahead of HTML5 - and not add formal requirements that makes people's lives harder.
16:45:18 [chaals]
PC: I am concerned that the MSE task force will suggest we are targeting the wrong place.
16:45:25 [chaals]
q+
16:45:44 [chaals]
JS: We are only asking for an informative note - there is no request here fora formal requirement.
16:45:59 [chaals]
PC: OK, I'll try to make sure the MSE task force gets that.
16:46:27 [janina]
q?
16:46:27 [chaals]
ACTION: chaals to raise a bug on HTML5 to clarify that sign language videos are an important accessibility use case for multiple video tracks.
16:46:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-221 - Raise a bug on html5 to clarify that sign language videos are an important accessibility use case for multiple video tracks. [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-12-19].
16:46:54 [chaals]
PC: How will this get communicated?
16:46:58 [Zakim]
+Cynthia_Shelly
16:47:38 [Zakim]
-chaals
16:47:56 [chaals]
JS: The A11y TF has started a CfC that will resolve Tuesday (meeting process requirements but shorter than desirable)
16:48:01 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:49:38 [MarkS]
zakim, [IP is chaals
16:49:38 [Zakim]
+chaals; got it
16:49:51 [chaals]
CMN: I'll communicate the results as soon as our CfC closes, and will add a comment to the bug. I also took an action to raise a parallel issue on HTML5
16:50:29 [chaals]
PC: MSE meets before the CfC closes, and may make decisions without taking teh result in account.
16:50:41 [chaals]
PLH: @@@ 1 implementation
16:50:59 [chaals]
JS: Sure, we need more implementations. But not all for a primary media resource.
16:51:35 [chaals]
q+
16:52:13 [plh]
s/@@@ 1 implementation/As I as I know, we only have only implementation of mediaGroup, so multi tracks support might be an issue in 2014/
16:52:56 [chaals]
CMN: Sure. There are at least 2 implementations being built in Australia, one by AccessibleOz and one by the Australian Government.
16:53:17 [chaals]
ST: In terms of looking for implementations are you also looking for content examples?
16:53:21 [chaals]
[YES PLEASE]
16:53:53 [chaals]
zakim, next item
16:53:53 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, chaals
16:53:57 [chaals]
q-

From: Aaron Colwell [mailto:acolwell@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Paul Cotton
Cc: Adrian Bateman; Mark Watson; public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Re: Action-219: Draft Response to MSE on Bug 23661

Does HTML5 have a similar note? I feel like this is unfair to force MSE to include this if HTML5 does not already satisfy this and have a solution for these use cases. The extensions to AudioTrack and VideoTrack have nothing to do with enabling accessability. They were added to allow kind information present in a DASH manifest to be reflected by these objects in the case where the kind information was not present in the initialization segments. It is not intended to add extra functionality aside from allowing the string returned from the kind attribute to be changed programatically.

I object to adding this note to the MSE spec. This is an attempt to give weight to an accessiblity issue that should be solved by the spec that defines HTMLMediaElement behavior (ie HTML5 & HTML.next) and not an extension spec that is simply providing an alternate way to supply media to the HTMLMediaElement. MSE allows multiple tracks to be supported and simply hooks into whatever multi-track functionality that is specified in HTML5. I don't believe MSE should be in the business of specifying/requiring extra multi-track behavior.

Aaron


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>> wrote:
FYI.    The original message on the A11Y TF list is:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Dec/0051.html

Basically the A11Y TF would like the Media TF to consider adding a non-normative note to MSE to cover the use case described in Bug 23661.  Note that the TF is also working on opening a bug on HTML5 to ensure this item is covered there as well.

I will add this item to the Media TF agenda for Tue Dec 17 but I encourage the Editors to review this item ASAP.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596<tel:%28425%29%20705-9596> Fax: (425) 936-7329<tel:%28425%29%20936-7329>


-----Original Message-----
From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net>]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:49 PM
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Action-219: Draft Response to MSE on Bug 23661

Colleagues:

Herewith, a proposed response to the HTML-WG's Media Task Force and our comments on their MSE specification as provided in Bug 23661:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661

MSE Specification:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/default/media-source/media-source-cr.html

The HTML-A11Y Task Force has previously discussed our willingness to accept the Media Task Force assertion (in response to Bug 23661) that the javascript approach detailed in the MSE specification is sufficient to meet accessibility requirements for alternative media, and especially for simultaneous video streams as is required to support Sign Language Translation http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/#sign-translation

The HTML-A11Y Task Force believes it important, however, that the core technical specification implementing media support in HTML 5 explicitly acknowledge both the alternative media requirements and the sufficiency of its specification to successfully deploy multiple media streams, especially multiple video streams, to users who require alternative media.

We propose, therefore, a brief note in the introductory section of the MSE specification stating:

        "NOTE: This specification directly supports multiple tracks. It
        explicitly extends the AudioTrack and VideoTrack interfaces to
        allow programmatic control of track kind to enable ,a
        href="http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/">Alternative
        Media</a> scenarios, including simultaneous multiple video
        tracks in support of <a
        href="http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/#sign-translation">Sign
        Language Translation video tracks</a>."

The Task Force recalls that our requirements for alternative media support were conveyed to the wider HTML-WG in 2010:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0327.html

Janina


--

Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200<tel:%2B1.443.300.2200>
                        sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net<mailto:sip%3Ajanina@asterisk.rednote.net>
                Email:  janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net>

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,  Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
        Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/