RE: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Standing permission to publish Working Drafts of COGA Gap Analysis

+1, I think this important for moving forward efficiently.

 

From: Becky Gibson [mailto:becky@knowbility.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 2:12 PM
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Accessible Platform Architectures Administration <public-apa-admin@w3.org>
Subject: Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Standing permission to publish Working Drafts of COGA Gap Analysis

 

+1  I have no objections to publishing updated working drafts of the Gap Analysis.

 

Becky Gibson





On Feb 12, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net <mailto:janina@rednote.net> > wrote:

 

Colleagues:

This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
Architectures (APA) Working Group on a request from our Cognitive and
Learning Disabilities (COGA) Task Force for standing permission to
publish updated working drafts of their Gap Analysis. The FPWD of this
documented is here:

 <https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-coga-gap-analysis-20171207/> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-coga-gap-analysis-20171207/

Note that the standing permission being requested applies only to
updated Working Drafts of this document. COGA understands it will need
explicit authorization from AG and APA before finalizing this document
as a W3C Note.

COGA has further agreed to produce a list of substantial changes
to each version of the document published under this standing permission grant.

Please also recall that the COGA Task ForceF is a joint Task Force of AG-WG
and APA. A parallel CfC was conducted in the Accessible Guidelines
(AG-WG) Working Group, though we failed to conduct our APA CfC on this
question in the same timeframe as AG-WG--as had been our intent.

 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JanMar/1126.html> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JanMar/1126.html

APA members who are also AG members and who responded to the AG CfC on
this question should ALSO respond here.

*       ACTION TO TAKE

This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of
support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though
messages of support are certainly welcome.

If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this
proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later
than 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time, Sunday 18 February.

Janina

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Janina Sajka

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

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures               <http://www.w3.org/wai/apa> http://www.w3.org/wai/apa



Here is my proposed feedback to the Timed Text Working Group:

 

<draft-feedback>

 

1. While we appreciate that  <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.1/> TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles and Captions 1.1 is depending on  <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/> Timed Text Markup Language 2 (TTML2), it should still include an introduction that guides the reader to a better understanding of its content.  Such an introduction could respond to the following questions:

a. Why are profiles needed for text-only and image-only captions/subtitles?
b. What are typical use cases for a image-only captions/subtitles?
c. What is the purpose of a presentation processor, and a transformation processor?

 

2. There is a general issue with the way that an author specifies layout characteristics of captions and subtitles, such as font size, font family, line height, background and positioning.  The spec describes the approach of the author specifying a “fixed layout” for captions and subtitles that the user cannot change.  However, it must be possible for the user to overwrite the author’s choice of font size, or background color, for example. This is necessary for accessibility reasons, in the same way that browsers allow the user to change font size and background color.  How can we find a good solution for these conflicting interests between author and user?  We would like to get into a discussion with you on this issue. 

 

3. Section 2 Documentation Conventions (applies also to  <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/> Timed Text Markup Language 2 (TTML2) section 2.3). For accessibility of the spec, information such as whether an element is deprecated or obsoleted should not be indicated by color (or background color) alone (cf.  <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#visual-audio-contrast-without-color> WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.1). 

 

4. Section 5.1 General. The method of associating a text profile document instance with an image profile document instance should be specified for interoperability reasons, and not be left open to the specific implementation.  Also, the association should be in both ways, i.e. also from the image profile document instance to the text profile document instance.

 

5. Section 6 Supported Features and Extensions. All font-related features are prohibited for the image profile. This seems to be an unnecessary restriction if the image profile contains images in SVG format which could be rendered differently based on the author’s choice of font characteristics.

 

6. Section 7.7.3 itts:forcedDisplay. This seems like a temporary solution. Wouldn’t it be better to define semantic layers of information that each could be made visible and invisible at runtime as appropriate for the user?  For example, the user may want to see either speech-only (subtitles), narration speech only (parts of subtitles), foreign-language speech-only (parts of subtitles) or any combination of them. 

 

7. Section 7.7.4 itts:altText.  While we see this feature as useful for accessibility purposes, it should be mandatory for images rather than recommended only. As mentioned in the spec, one could take the pertaining text passage from the text profile document instance – but (1) an accompanying text profile is not required, and (2) the alternative text for the image could be different from the textual caption. Therefore, the itts:altText element should always be specified, but it should be empty for decorative images (not clear if a “decorative image” used as a caption makes sense anyway). By requiring an itts:altText for every image, but allowing for an empty element in case of a decorative image, we would align it with the alt attribute in HTML5 for images.

 

</draft-feedback>

 

Best regards,

Gottfried 

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Issue Tracker [ <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org> mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 09:29
An:  <mailto:public-apa@w3.org> public-apa@w3.org
Betreff: apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and captions 1.1  <https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/> https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/

 

apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and captions 1.1  <https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/> https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/

 

 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2152> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2152

 

Assigned to: Gottfried Zimmermann