W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > July 2010

Media Subteam Minutes, Wednesday 7 July

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:42:11 -0400
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100707234211.GA4633@sonata.rednote.net>
Minutes from the Html-A11y Task Force Media Subteam teleconference today
are provided below in text and are available in html at:


                                                           - DRAFT -


07 Jul 2010

   See also: IRC log


          John, Janina, +44.154.558.aaaa, Judy, Eric, Sean




     * Topics
     * Summary of Action Items

   <silvia> I will be here on irc

   <JF> thanks silvia

   <scribe> scribe: janina

   jf: suggests we go through first batch of comments
   ... consider how to get them into the wiki doc
   ... then second batch, and tech reqs
   ... sec 2.4 clear audio ...

   <JF> Sec. 2.4 Clear Audio

   <JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0205.html

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Clear_

   <JF> audio

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20080526_media-requirements/results#xq

   <JF> 5

   jf: seems there was confusion re what clear audio is
   ... that we're talking about an isolated audio track
   ... is that correct

   sh: my understanding is as used in u.k., believe it's derived
   ... but that's not the same as the user req
   ... we need to capture the separation notion

   jf: one audio stream, or a derived stream?

   sh: could be either

   jf: rec is to make it 'separate alternative audio track'

   sh: real req is to separate speech in foreground from all background audio

   jf: so how much on ua vs content producer

   <silvia> question: do we need to insist on having the audio track separate or could it be a track inside a multitrack
   resource? The latter would be easier to implement.

   <silvia> i.e if we have the notion of separate, that should not imply separate resources

   <Judy> js: but they can still do that if they are separate tracks

   <Judy> sh: [missed]

   <JF> (JF sees silvia on IRC)

   <Judy> sh: just change the relative volume, it's the normal playback system, the user is in control of that

   <Judy> ...if the player always has to play back the standard sound track, you always have to have at least the
   separation of the 2 channels

   <Judy> js: seems to me that you might have a user agent far more capable than just playing one audio track

   <Judy> sh: go for the lowest common denominator, that is what you author for

   jf: so are we talking ability to see multiple audio tracks -- at the ua

   <Judy> js: i think that is very realistic, that's what we're going to see

   sh: simplest is just choose a track
   ... js is correct, much of our other reqs will require multiple audio, or multiple video, or multiple text tracks --
   some combo
   ... so one req is on content provider to make the clear audio available in addition to default audio stream
   ... second is on the ua to select, either or both

   jb: seems we're combining tech and user req discussion

   <Judy> judy agrees w/ js' and sh' capture of this -- but we do need to capture it

   sh: user need is to be able to listen to either the clear audio stream or the mixed default stream

   <Judy> jf: i don't think that will happen

   <Judy> js: it has to happen, it's in multiple recc's

   <Judy> ec: it will happen in some, and won't be supported in others

   <Judy> jf: so we say, support speech as a separate audio track, and leave it at that?

   <Judy> js: that would be the reasonable way to achieve it

   <Judy> jf: we seem to understand each other, and update the wiki, and move on

   <JF> (CA-1) Support speech as a separate, alternative audio track from other sounds.

   <JF> (CA-1) Support speech as a separate, isolated audio track from other sounds.

   <JF> Agreed!

   jf: sec 2.5 content nav by content structure

   <silvia> I don't understand the difference between alternative audio track and isolated audio track - hopefully your
   wiki edits will make these clearer

   <Judy> silvia, sean proposed re-naming it, it is not a different thing

   <silvia> ok, thanks

   <JF> judy notes that minutes are lean

   people questioning whether a daisy type audio plus e-text is in scope

   <Judy> judy notes that there were no pre-exclusions of scope

   <silvia> i would not want to mention concrete formats in the requirements doc other than as an example for describing a

   <silvia> requirements need to be independent of concrete tech solutions

   <silvia> re daisy and epub

   <JF> Eric suggests that the require is that we can associate a document with the media resource that describes the
   structure of the resource

   <JF> EC: we also need to say somehow that it be possible for the user to be able to navigate through the media resource
   with that infomration

   <Judy> judy clarifies for silvia that this was not an explicit discussion of including those formats, but being able to
   address formats with those types of capabilities

   <silvia> good, agreed

   <JF> (CN-2) Provide support for a means of describing the structure of a media resource, and the ability to navigate
   via this structure.

   users need to be able to navigate media by its inherent structure, e.g.

   can associate a document with the media resource that describes the structure of

   the resource

   <JF> EC: we also need to say somehow that it be possible for the user to be able to navigate through the media resource

   that infomrationagreement to drop 'inherent'

   <JF> (CN-2) Users need to be able to navigate media by its structure (e.g. Using a document that describes the
   structure of the resource)

   <eric_carlson> +1

   <JF> Agreed!


   <silvia> +1


   jb: raises process concern -- we seem to be going item by item again. is there a way to expedite?

   <JF> Sec. 2.8 - Judy to track down example for clarification - will coordinate with Sean

   <JF> Sec. 2.8 Sign Translation

   <JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0269.html

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Sign_T

   <JF> ranslation

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20080526_media-requirements/results#xq

   <JF> 9

   <JF> Will ask Silvia to make edits to wiki to incorporate the Q & A provided for this section (clarriffication)

   <JF> Sec. 2.9 Transcripts

   <JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0229.html

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Transc

   <JF> ripts

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20080526_media-requirements/results#xq

   <JF> 10

   <silvia> there are not enough notes in these minutes for me to know what to edit

   <silvia> I can make the edits for the sections that Sean and I reviewed though

   <JF> Eric proposes that each group edit the wiki for the sections they responded to/on

   <silvia> agreed

   <Judy> judy +1 to eric's suggestion. judy & janina will do this thurs or fri

   <Judy> judy proposes that all parties capture their changes in the history or discussion page, as appropriate for
   coordinated wiki work

   <silvia> the history page will capture the changes automatically

   <silvia> you can put rationale on the discussion page

   general group agreement to drop 'keyboard' from user controls and merge two sections as proposed by jb and js

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 23:42:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:41 UTC