Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Proposed TTML Comments

+1

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*

*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect, **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, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:37 PM Janina Sajka (janina@rednote.net) <
janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
> Architectures (APA) Working Group proposing the following review
> response on:
>
> ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and = captions 1.2
> https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.2/
>
> This draft response was first posted to APA on 22 January last at:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2020Jan/0022.html
> It's language has been tweaked by yours truly.
>
> <begin draft comment>
>
> 1.)    Reference to WCAG 2.1:
>
> We appreciate the addition of section
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/WD-ttml-imsc1.2-20191128/#wcag-applications>
> D.1
> WCAG Considerations and its content.  This is very helpful.  We would,
> though,
> like to change the phrasing "WCAG 2.1 recommends" to "WCAG 2.1 requires",
> because the WCAG success criteria are normative requirements rather than
> recommendations.
>
> 2.)    Requested Additional WCAG 2.1 References:
>
> In addition to the guidelines and success criteria you already reference,
> we
> would like to see references to the following WCAG 2.1 success criteria
> that are
> also applicable to the TTML profiles specification:
>
>         a.        <
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/#contrast-minimum> Success
> Criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (applying to the text-only profile)
>
>         b.        <
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/#non-text-contrast>
> Success Criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast (applying to the image-only
> profile)
>
>         c.        <
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/#language-of-page> Success
> Criterion 3.1.1 Language of Page (using the xml:lang attribute)
>
>         d.        <
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/#language-of-parts>
> Success Criterion 3.1.2 Language of Parts (using the xml:lang attribute)
>
> 3.)    Reference to MAUR:  We also appreciate the addition of section D.2
> MAUR
> Considerations
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/WD-ttml-imsc1.2-20191128/#maur-applications>.
> Thank you. We trust the MAUR will continue helpful to the wider community.
>
> 4.)     With respect to the
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/WD-ttml-imsc1.2-20191128/#altText> 7.12.2
> altText
> named metadata item, this is directly related to the accessibility
> requirement
> of having an alternate text version for images (<
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/#non-text-content> Success
> Criterion 1.1.1
> Non-text Content). Could you add a note here saying something like: "Note:
> Authors are encouraged to provide text alternatives for every
> non-decorative
> image and/or compound image set by using the altText named metadata item.
> This is
> necessary for making the image in the document accessible to persons with
> (visual)
> disabilities, thus complying with
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/#non-text-content> W CAG
> 2.1 success criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text content)."
>
> 5.)    Suggested Introduction Section for First-Time Readers: The document
> would be easier to read and understand for first-time readers if it had an
> introduction that guided the reader to a better understanding of its
> content.
> Such an introduction could serve to introduce the reader to items such as
> the
> following:
>
>         a.       Why are profiles needed for text-only and image-only
> captions/subtitles?
>
>         b.       What are typical use cases for image-only
> captions/subtitles?
>
> 6.)    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.  It should be made clear that
> authors
> can and should define the viewport and text characteristics, but these
> definitions may be overridden by the user by setting up their user agent to
> better meet their particular needs as users (cf. MAUR, 3.7 Requirements on
> the
> use of the viewport
> <
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-media-accessibility-reqs-20151203/#requirements-on-the-use-of-the-viewport
> >).
> For example, a user with vision impairment who also requires caption
> support
> may want to have all captions displayed in the lower third of the screen
> with
> a large font, disregarding the definition of various viewports and font
> types
> defined by the author.  We recommend adding a note to the spec to advise
> authors that  the final rendition of their document may not follow their
> specified styling and positioning, but follow user-defined styling and
> positioning instead.
>
> 7.)     <
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/WD-ttml-imsc1.2-20191128/#forced-content>
> Section C. Forced content: This seems like a temporary solution to us.
> Mightn't it be better to define semantic layers of information so that each
> layer could be made visible and invisible at runtime as appropriate for the
> user?  For example, the user might want to see either speech-only
> (subtitles),
> narration speech only (parts of subtitles), foreign-language speech-only
> (parts of subtitles) or some combination of these.
>
> </draft-comment>
>
> ***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, Tuesday 25 February.
>
> NOTE: This Call for Consensus is being conducted in accordance with the
> APA Decision Policy published at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/decision-policy
>
> Our thanks to Dr. Gottfried Zimmerman for reviewing the TTML
> specification and providing us with his recommended response above as
> logged in.  Action-2224<https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2224>.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>