- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 19:24:59 -0400
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Minutes from todays' HTML-A11Y Media Subteam teleconference are provided below in text and are posted as HTML at: http://www.w3.org/2010/06/02-html-a11y-minutes.html W3C - DRAFT - HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 02 Jun 2010 Agenda See also: IRC log Attendees Present +1.650.862.aaaa, Janina, +1.408.307.aabb, Michael_Cooper, John_Foliot, Eric_Carlson, +0154558aacc, Judy, Sean_Hayes, MikeSmith, +61.3.986.4.aadd, Kenny_Johar Regrets Markku_Hakkinen, Geoff_Freed, Laura_Carlson Chair John_Foliot Scribe janina Contents * Topics 1. requirements document review * Summary of Action Items __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2010 <scribe> scribe: janina john: let's start with open actions review ... judy's actions? judy: have been working on a comparison to iso, seems orthogonal ... will post my conclusions ... so complete on iso comparison, but not on checking with other key individuals ... also unsure how to engage external people effectively without overwhelming them ... while action wasn't recroded, i did some work on the disability language in the doc, and will still complete that john: is frank here? [silence] requirements document review john: john: not sure how to break our log jam and move forward ... much media will be pushed via the net, whether via specialized ua, or a general browser, our doc is important ... we don't have the luxury to continue debating the doc, though ... our survey was to make sure our doc is complete ... think going through the doc detail by detail is premature eric: perhaps i misunderstood what our purpose was in these requirements ... i understood that these would be required of any ua that implemented html5 media john: my understanding, from the a11y side, is to fully participate in consumption of this media q! <MikeSmith> I think other implementors are liking to view requirements in the same way that Eric just described -- as implementation requirements john: for instance, sign-language differs from country to country ... it'll be a tricky balancing shawn: i think a lot of our requirements aren't technically difficult eric: not so sure ... hard to decode on small platform shawn: but there are other ways to achieve this janina: we need it in the spec so that it can be covered eric: but, even on the desktop smil2 is lots of work ... so not necessarily easy to do ... are these rfc2119 musts? shawn: not necessarily that we need smil, but that we need the ability to do these things judy: we specifically separated user needs to avoid this conundrum eric: but we need to discuss what is required judy: absolutely agree eric: my concern is that 'requirement' rfc2119 'must' on the user agent john: i think everyone here is realistic ... we should remember the concept of "graceful degradation" ... yes, going back to the described video example, it's a balancing thing here too ... some kind of switching mechanism may be needed between a generalized broser and a more specialized player ua janina: it's a question of what html5 wants to be, if a rich media platform, all these requirements will be needed somewhere, though probably almost never on any individual content item <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to say that's why we separated out what the user needs vs how they can be technically achieved, so we wouldn't go into that judy: we keep hearing the question of whether we need to prioritize these ... should we discuss prioritization? john: also my question in some ways ... a bit disappointed in so few responses <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say what we ultimately need in regard to the spec is a specific (sub)set of requirements for HTML UAs mike: i think eric's response will be typical of browser developers ... the spec provides conformance criteria ... if there are requirements on something other than browsers, then it's not about html janina: i can support rfc2119 should, but the spec needs to comprehend most of these because the intent seems to be a full gammut of media hosted via html john: so our experience to date has been that addons and plugins may play something launched from the browser ... expect the browser will be more limited janina: not sure that browser may need to drive it all judy: want to raise a different point ... ... want to come back to the question of what will help move forward ... only one person on this call has filled out the survey, so can we ask a new deadline for survey? john: so, is this a wrong understanding of where we're headed? eric: what? john: html ... is should language overly onorous eric: seems we want interoperable content on the web, so a spec that all user agents that most people use will implement eric; so description of any feature in the spec needs to be so well described that it will be implemented consistently shawn: but it's about how we capture author intent, not how user agents provide it ... roughly the same way sounds ok, but not exactly the same way my competitor does eric: so spec doesn't say how to do some thing, but what it should do ... so external file format needs specification john: so, eric, you mentioned multiple audio streams unsupportable on some devices today ... so maybe not today, but who knows about a year from now? I recall touch interfaces were experimental just a few years ago ... we just don't want today's device limitations constrain our specification of what's needed shawn: so there's an issue of balance between providing the data in a form that something can be done with it ... so that's authoring--give the data in a usable way ... the must of what the content supports ... and the should of what the ua does ... we need to capture the musts john: agree janina well said john: do we have agreement of where to go with this? silence -- taken as ascent john: so, judy ... judy: i expect so few have completed the form because there's so much to do in completing it shawn: will do, but want weekend janina: ditto kenny: end of today john: by monday mike: don't plan to respond michael: don't feel qualified on this judy: monday is better for me john: so can we extend this until monday? ... and we need to send around another explanation that we want to capture user requirements <Judy> +1 to accept input via email as well janina: extend to 23:59 boston time monday john: so we should have more complete results next wednesday <Judy> janina: not sure that's the correct breakdown <Judy> ...Sean Hayes helped us understand constaints around the authored requirements <Judy> ...the must part might be on what the spec provides <Judy> ...maybe the should are what the user agent can do <Judy> ...if this is going to be a media platform, then we don't want the breakdown to be 'we can do text descriptions but we can't provide for audio description tracks" <Judy> Janina: if you don't have a way to support how you implement something in the spec then you're nowhere janina: i'm not clear that prioritizing these is the right way to go <JF> Janina: if HTML5 is to become the platform for media, then we need to ensure that we have a means to capture all of these requirements, alternatives and requirements specified john: don't disagree, but wonder whether we should start with author or 'must and should' ... think the latter because of what the engineers are saying ... think we should start with user agent requirements ... if our user reqs doc is more or less complete, i suggest our next discussion is ua requirements <JF> Sean: next step is to turn user requirements to tech requirements <JF> Eric: next step is to get clarification of some of the user requirements <JF> Sean: agrees with Eric shawn: next step is to turn these into tech reqs, then to decide what's on content and what's on ua eric: think we first need to agree on the user reqs john: so that should be our agenda for next week--item by item discussion and sign off ... any other business, questions for now? ... thanks to everyone! Summary of Action Items [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net 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, 2 June 2010 23:25:33 UTC