- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:53:34 -0400
- To: Becky Gibson <becky@knowbility.org>
- Cc: Accessible Platform Architectures Administration <public-apa-admin@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Message-ID: <CAEy-OxEU6wEZLZ+ydEUqPe5XrPAy+y3ERgrew_S+83T6yDSGAw@mail.gmail.com>
+1 ** katie ** *Katie Haritos-Shea* *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect, Vice President of Accessibility at EverFi, **Board Member and W3C Advisory Committee Rep for Knowbility * *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = * *CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants> *Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com <ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>* People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will never forget how you made them feel....... Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going. On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:50 PM Becky Gibson <becky@knowbility.org> wrote: > +1 > > On Aug 21, 2019, at 1:03 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: > > +1 > > JF > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:47 AM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > >> Colleagues: >> >> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform >> Architectures (APA) Working Group on the publication of three First Public >> Working Draft (FPWD) documents from our Pronunciation Task Force. >> >> * User Scenarios< >> https://w3c.github.io/pronunciation/user-scenarios/> >> >> * Use Cases<https://w3c.github.io/pronunciation/use-cases/> >> >> * Gap Analysis<https://w3c.github.io/pronunciation/gap-analysis/> >> >> Please review the documents noted above. Please note that several >> editorial tweaks are expected, but no substantive changes before >> publication. >> >> *** 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, whether with all of these proposed publications or any >> particular one, please respond by replying on list to this message no >> later than 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time, Friday 23 August. >> >> Best, >> >> 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] >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > *John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC > Representative > Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good > deque.com > > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2019 18:54:06 UTC