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

Re: FYI - Media Accessibility User Requirements WD

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:55:51 +0000
To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AD59E37B-ABB6-4993-95F2-03CA7B966882@bbc.co.uk>
To be clear, my proposal was that, when we take the required step of assessing conformance against a requirement set, we include these in that set. The report of conformance does not necessarily have to be "100% conforms to every requirement."



> On 19 Aug 2014, at 18:44, "Pierre-Anthony Lemieux" <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
> 
> Right. I am happy for the group to consider them, and provide feedback
> as the case may be. I do not think it is however reasonable to
> necessarily hold-off and/or require significant changes to IMSC 1
> and/or TTML 2 (as they approach LC) based on a WD. There is always the
> opportunity to address the final published requirements in future
> revisions of the specifications.
> 
> Best,
> 
> -- Pierre
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> 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 17:56:22 UTC

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