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

+1

On Feb 14, 2018 12:31 AM, "Matt King" <a11ythinker@gmail.com> wrote:

> +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> 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/
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures
> http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
>
> Here is my proposed feedback to the Timed Text Working Group:
>
>
>
> <draft-feedback>
>
>
>
>    1. While we appreciate that TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles
>    and Captions 1.1 <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.1/> is depending on Timed
>    Text Markup Language 2 (TTML2) <https://www.w3.org/TR/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:
>
>
>    1. Why are profiles needed for text-only and image-only
>       captions/subtitles?
>       2. What are typical use cases for a image-only captions/subtitles?
>       3. What is the purpose of a presentation processor, and a
>       transformation processor?
>
>
>
>    1. 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.
>
>
>
>    1. Section 2 Documentation Conventions (applies also to Timed Text
>    Markup Language 2 (TTML2) <https://www.w3.org/TR/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. WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.1
>    <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#visual-audio-contrast-without-color>
>    ).
>
>
>
>    1. 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.
>
>
>
>    1. 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.
>
>
>
>    1. 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.
>
>
>
>    1. 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 <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 09:29
> An: 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/
>
>
>
> apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and
> captions 1.1 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2152
>
>
>
> Assigned to: Gottfried Zimmermann
>
>
>