Minutes from the Media Telecon on Wednesday 12 May

Minutes from todays Media teleconference are provided below in text and
are available as html at:



                                                           - DRAFT -

                                          HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

12 May 2010


   See also: IRC log


          +1.408.307.aaaa, +1.650.862.aabb, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Sean_Hayes, Janina_Sajka,
          Judy, Mark_Hakkinen, Silvia, +61.3.986.4.aacc, Kenny_Johar?, Kenny_Johar, Geoff_Freed





     * Topics
         1. 1. Requirements Gathering (Update)
     * Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 12 May 2010

   <MichaelC> meeting: Media sub-group - HTML Accessibility Task Force

   <JF> == Agenda ==

   <JF> 1. Requirements Gathering (Update)

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/MultimediaAccessibility

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media

   <JF> 2. Integration of 2 Draft Proposals into Draft Spec by Editor

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations

   <JF> 3. Time Text Format

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9673

   <JF> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20100513_cfc-websrt/

   <JF> 4. Other business?

   <MichaelC> scribe: silvia

1. Requirements Gathering (Update)

   requirements have been gathered at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media

   Janina(?): we should go through and make sure we have covered all the requirements

   … structure that was given before isn't fully represented

   Markku: made architectural proposal to avoid classes

   Judy: emails and minutes should be analysed for what is still missing

   Janina: we should distribute actions for each area

   JF: unsure what further to do

   Judy: would be helpful to go through actions from last time

   … then figure out what's the best way to make use of this material

   … get thoughtful about crossvetting the material

   … cross-reviewed and well-vetted requirements list that should represent a consensus

   JF: I'm almost hearing a spreadsheet

   Judy: I'm less thinking about the format, but about how to approach the evaluation

   … at some point a checklist would be good

   … but I'm not too worried about the format right now

   … we should this in this meeting: 1. action check, 2. review, 3. what to do next

   JF: we're also missing the input from the IBM people on audio descriptions

   Sean: technical requirements seem to be still missing

   … there is a lot of material more generally

   Mike: we should probably do a formal walk-through of the actions and then see what's missing

   <MichaelC> Media issues and actions


   <trackbot> ACTION-27 -- John Foliot to create requirements a11y media accessibility document -- due 2010-05-05 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/27

   <MichaelC> action-27: see http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media

   <trackbot> ACTION-27 Create requirements a11y media accessibility document notes added

   JF: I think that document is addressing action-27

   <MichaelC> action-27: also see http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/MultimediaAccessibility; more historical and prose than
   the formal actions

   <trackbot> ACTION-27 Create requirements a11y media accessibility document notes added

   <MichaelC> close action-27

   close action-27

   <trackbot> ACTION-27 Create requirements a11y media accessibility document closed

   <trackbot> ACTION-27 Create requirements a11y media accessibility document closed


   <trackbot> ACTION-29 -- Sean Hayes to look into descriptive video requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/29

   <MichaelC> action-29: added to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media

   <trackbot> ACTION-29 Look into descriptive video requirements notes added

   Sean: I think it's pretty much closed

   … others should add to it

   <MichaelC> close action-29

   <trackbot> ACTION-29 Look into descriptive video requirements closed


   <trackbot> ACTION-30 -- Janina Sajka to look into structural navigation requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/30

   Janina: not yet complete
   ... give me another week

   <MichaelC> action-30 due 19 May

   <trackbot> ACTION-30 Look into structural navigation requirements due date now 19 May


   <trackbot> ACTION-31 -- Judy Brewer to follow up w/ Geoff on comprehensiveness of captioning requirements -- due
   2010-05-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/31

   Judy: I did and pinged a few people during the week

   … side-question to Geoff: do you have more that you want to add?

   Geoff: it's mostly done - I have contributed comments from myself and colleagues at NCAM

   … I want to go through requirements and use case section at the bottom

   … I'd like to review that

   <MichaelC> ACTION: Geoff to review use cases section of media requirements document [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Review use cases section of media requirements document [on Geoff Freed - due

   <MichaelC> close action-31

   <trackbot> ACTION-31 Follow up w/ Geoff on comprehensiveness of captioning requirements closed


   <trackbot> ACTION-32 -- Judy Brewer to follow up w/ Gunnar Hellstrom on comprehensiveness of secondary signed channel
   requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/32

   Judy: haven't done yet

   … Gunnar is expert on signing, but I don't think he has looked at W3C work in HTML5 yet

   … I wanted to give him an intro and walk him through it

   … I want to try and do that within the next week

   … plus there are some other experts I know who I want to point to this

   … including a few colleagues

   <MichaelC> action-32 due 19 May

   <trackbot> ACTION-32 Follow up w/ Gunnar Hellstrom on comprehensiveness of secondary signed channel requirements due
   date now 19 May


   <trackbot> ACTION-34 -- Sean Hayes to write transcript requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/34

   <MichaelC> action-34: some work in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media

   <trackbot> ACTION-34 Write transcript requirements notes added

   Sean: I haven't been through formulating bullet points, but have done basic work

   <MichaelC> action-34 due 19 may

   <trackbot> ACTION-34 Write transcript requirements due date now 19 may

   … would like another week


   <trackbot> ACTION-35 -- Frank Olivier to write cues requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/35

   Mike: don't think he's done it

   … somebody should ping him


   <trackbot> ACTION-36 -- Janina Sajka to draft the message re date and media text spec to send to HTML WG -- due
   2010-05-12 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/36

   Janina: done

   <MichaelC> close action-36

   <trackbot> ACTION-36 Draft the message re date and media text spec to send to HTML WG closed

   <janina> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20100513_cfc-websrt/results

   … action complete by email and a call for concensus

   <MichaelC> action-36: see http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20100513_cfc-websrt/results

   <trackbot> ACTION-36 Draft the message re date and media text spec to send to HTML WG notes added

   Judy: I have two gaps I want to mention

   … 1. how much review have the requirements received from actual people with hearing or vision impairment?

   … did the requirements list take into account requirements also for deaf-blind people?

   Janina: I think we do because we specified a variety of alternatives and are not restricting channels

   … people can pick two things at the same time

   … it would be good though if somebody could double-check that

   Michael: in the requirements document there are two sentences that directly address it

   Judy: I'm not questioning whether we have individual requirements for this, but I'd like somebody who has real needs to
   actually cross-ceck for comprehensiveness

   … I have somebody on mind

   JF: I don't know anyone who would have real-world experience from that perspective, so if you have somebody at hand,
   that would be great

   Judy: I'm hoping I can get somebody tomorrow - I will certainly try

   Janina: I'd like to caution us on the issue of completeness - deaf-blind people have different requirements depending
   on whether they had hearing or visual loss first

   Judy: 2. a cross-check I want to do with a JTC-1 requirements list

   … I want to look at that

   … Clayton Lewis, Uni Collorado, could be a good person to add for review

   <MichaelC> ACTION: Judy to organize a cross-check on requirements with JTC-1 user needs repository [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Organize a cross-check on requirements with JTC-1 user needs repository [on Judy Brewer
   - due 2010-05-19].

   <MichaelC> ACTION: judy to seek deaf-blind representation in requirements gathering process [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Seek deaf-blind representation in requirements gathering process [on Judy Brewer - due

   Janina: we might be missing a cognitive dimension

   … WCAG-2 - there is a requirement in Germany for having simple representations of Web pages

   … we might want to have a simple (plain?) representation of text, too

   Judy: any other gaps that occurred to people?

   Janina: timescale modification - speed-up and slow-down

   … I'll add it to the requirements list

   Judy: have we covered acrhitectural requirements completely yet?


   <mhakkinen> uaag draft has text re timescale modification. based on DAISY experience.

   Janina: Philip is attending a meeting on web audio api, which should be relevant to us, too

   silvia: I still must read it, sorry
   ... I am slightly concerned about the free-text being hard to parse

   (?): the list at the bottom has all the discrete requirements extracted - the top sets the scene

   JF: the hardest thing will be to see which requirements go towards the time stamp format, which towards the
   presentation, which towards the html5 markup

   <JF> Geoof

   Geoff: I like what Sean did with creating a decent amount of context at the top before jumping into the requirements

   Judy: that explanation is really useful - I was wondering if the discrete requirements should have come first and the
   detailed descriptions later

   … but this seems good

   Janina: it seems there is a lot of value in a good requirements document

   Judy: I'm curious what makes it easier for each of us to look through the list

   … is anyone finding the current document numbing or has a suggestion to improve how to consume it

   JF: how do we capture the requirement for a time stamp format

   Geoff: I think timing text and readability of a format are not quite relevant here

   Sean: it is a technical requirement to be able to update the screen quickly enough for good quality

   … it is a technical as well as an authorial requiremnt

   Judy: when I put requirements for other groups together, I've seen we had needs to motivating information

   … we might need more background links

   … do we want to plan for having motivating/explanatory information for the terse requiremnts?

   … or is that too much additional work?

   JF: I think it's getting too large already

   <mhakkinen> mark has to go. bye

   … the range of speed is a technical details that we may not need to limit - the technical need for the browser is that
   we can speed up and slow down

   Judy: it seems don't quite know where everything is going of our requirements - some into HTML5, some into a time stamp
   format, some maybe elsewhere

   Janina: it is part of what we should advise the HTML5 WG on is where these requirements should be met - and what should
   in inside HTML5

   … we may even find that existing specifications that address some requirements are incomplete, like when I found that
   pitch retaining was not covered for speed changes in HTML5

   Judy: I have a proposal for how we can go through vetting our list

   … how about one more week or requirement collection

   … then cross-reviews with other technologies over the following 2 weeks maybe

   … maybe we should do cross-vetting and completeness checks now already

   JF: I think we should just do that - we need to get going

   … a perpetual discussion on requirements is not going to make progress on the spec

   … maybe we can action everything that is needed to chunk it up next week and go from there?

   Janina: I think we should be looking at that next week

   … another week of gathering and cleaning up is good

   … the Hypertext coordination group is very interested in our results

   … they want us to present it in early June

   … we should look at the different technologies that exist and where gaps may be from next week at the latest

   … also we should identify how much more work is required so we can give the HMTL5 group a deadline for it

   Eric: I think it would be good to talk about these things in the meeting, but it is important to start talking about
   individual technical points in email, so we capture the details and get beyond the surface

   Judy: do we have digital book / DAISY type requirements in it?

   … Kenny dropped off

   Janina: I don't know if we specifically have a book view of this

   … Daisy are interested in using HTML5 for publishing

   scribe: not sure if we are close to meeting that

   … HTML5 is more about focus on youtube and radio etc type applications

   Sean: certainly within DAISY we are interested to publish books in HTML5

   … the line between books and Web documents is going to become more blurred

   Eric: I have to agree with that - electronic book formats are already XHTML and some support HTML5 features

   silvia: it will be important to see what limitations DAISY sees in publishing DAISY documents in HTML5

   Sean: the navigation possibilities in DAISY are the main difference

   JF: we have 3 other items on the agenda

   … we will take another 25 min or so

   item: 2. Integration of 2 Draft Proposals into Draft Spec by Editor

   JF: are we there with what Ian has specified with these proposals?

   … we've done a lot of work there - are we good with that, or do we let that go?

   Janina: are we satisfied with the removal of WebSRT or is there more we want to address?

   … I wanted to make sure it is clear that we didn't want to have it in the spec, but not stop development on it

   JF: I am concretely talking about our 2 documents on the wiki

   … we were leaning towards track, some were concerned

   … Ian is flying with a changed version of our proposal

   … where is our comfort level with that?

   … do we still need a group resolution on this?

   Eric: the track API came out of our group and the form it is in now has been up for a couple of months without comment
   in our wiki

   … it seems to me that it is in fine shape to be in the standrad

   Judy: throughout the entire process of html5 there will be a variety of times when the spec will be in a transitional

   … my impression is that there is a lot of churn going on on-list and off-list wrt what accessible media format will
   prevail in HTML5

   … what I'm hearing from some folks is that the requirements collection is really helpful for first-time people looking
   at media a11y

   JF: my question specifically is that we had 2 proposals in the wiki that we had in good shape and that we wanted to

   … by and large

   … now we stepped back to requirements analysis - maybe our previous work was too ad-hoc

   … now we have built the requirements list to make sure we haven't missed anything

   … what if we go through the list and discover that <track> does not satisfy some of the requirements

   … where do we sit wrt to these proposals?

   … do we wait until we finished the requirements collection to evaluate them?

   … or do we let them continue to move forward?


   … I feel it is hard to judge stuff when the requirements are not clear

   Eric: I honestly think that the track API is orthogonal to the things we are looking at right now

   … it's all about providing API access to the structure of the media file

   … we may decide that we have additional needs

   … I would be extremely surprised if any of the requirements would conflict with the track API

   … also, when something ends up in the spec, it doesn't mean it has to stay there

   … if we later find a fundamental flaw, we can still change it

   … until the spec is done, nothing is written in stone

   silvia: those two proposals are the past - it might be better if we spend our time on checking our requirements with
   the text that has actually gone into the spec

   … rather than with the two proposals that were developed by us, but not officially put forward to the HTML5 WG

   JF: my question is really what to do with the 2 proposals

   Janina: we should compare our requirements against our technologies

   JF: so we will finish the requirements document and then move forward

   Judy: so we will do the cross-checking and vetting after another week of requirements gathering

   JF: we will let the proposals sit until we have all the requirements together

   Eric: we need to use the requirements to judge the technologies

   item: 3. Time Text Format

   JF: the WebSRT format has now been removed from the spec

   … we need to analyse whether WebSRT is the right format

   scribe: we should probably defer the discussion, since we're almost out of time

   Janina: given our concerns last week, are we satisfied with what happened or do we need to see something else happen?

   Judy: my impression is that what happens satisfied our concerns

   JF: I think so too

   … we will have to spend some time discussing about formats

   … we did say at the F2F that support of SRT and some form of TTML would be the best

   … but we need to discuss this further

   … maybe have email discussions and discuss in meeting next week

   item: 4. Other business?

   JF: doesn't seem so

   … thanks everybody for attending!

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Geoff to review use cases section of media requirements document [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Judy to organize a cross-check on requirements with JTC-1 user needs repository [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: judy to seek deaf-blind representation in requirements gathering process [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

Found Scribe: silvia
Found Date: 12 May 2010
People with action items: geoff judy


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, 12 May 2010 23:37:32 UTC