W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > August 2014

Re: FYI - Media Accessibility User Requirements WD

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:53:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dwUJBh7FOReXYMstrZ4pjhENKR2V4ijPxm=dP615U7jA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
I agree with Nigel that we should at least consider whether/how we support
these requirements (now and as they evolve) and be able to document (if
needed) where and why we don't satisfy them.


On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nigel,
>
> The point is that the recommendations might fluctuate with time, and
> it is not reasonable IMSC 1 and TTML 2 to track a moving target given
> their timeline.
>
> Best,
>
> -- Pierre
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > The requirements we assess the Recommendations against do not need to be
> > normative so I think it is reasonable for us to take a snapshot if they
> > are not stable.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19/08/2014 17:30, "Pierre-Anthony Lemieux" <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Aren't these specification working drafts, and thus subject to change?
> >>If so, it is probably not reasonable to make TTML 2 and IMSC 1
> >>contingent on them given their timeline.
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>
> >>-- Pierre
> >>
> >>On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> >>wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the heads-up Glenn. It looks like these bits:
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-media-accessibility-reqs-20140814/#captionin
> >>>g
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-media-accessibility-reqs-20140814/#enhanced-
> >>>captions-subtitles
> >>> are particularly relevant to us.
> >>>
> >>> Would anyone object to adopting those requirements as a subset of the
> >>> requirements that TTML 2 and IMSC 1 should be measured against when
> >>> assessing their conformance when it comes to LC/CR as per the process
> >>>for
> >>> publishing Recommendations (either the old or the new process)?
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>>
> >>> Nigel
> >>>
> >>> From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
> >>> Date: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:59
> >>> To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
> >>> Subject: FYI - Media Accessibility User Requirements WD
> >>> Resent-From: <public-tt@w3.org>
> >>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, 19 August 2014 17:00
> >>>
> >>> Media Accessibility User Requirements Working Draft Updated
> >>>
> >>>    14 August 2014 | Archive
> >>>
> >>>    http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/4024
> >>>
> >>>    The Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG) today published
> >>>    an updated Working Draft of "Media Accessibility User
> >>>    Requirements," a planned W3C Working Group Note. This document
> >>>    describes the accessibility requirements of people with
> >>>    disabilities with respect to audio and video on the Web,
> >>>    particularly in the context of HTML5. It explains alternative
> >>>    content technologies that people use to get audio and video
> >>>    content, and how these fit in the larger picture of
> >>>    accessibility, both technically within a web user agent and
> >>>    from a production process point of view. Learn more about the
> >>>    Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
> >>>
> >>>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/
> >>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-media-accessibility-reqs-20140814/
> >>>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/
> >
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:54:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:17 UTC