- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 11:59:29 +1000
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
A quick note to list some of the things that I heard out of today's conference that we want to address once we're finished with the requirements collection: * assess "time stamp" file formats (I'm borrowing a term that John has keyed for time-aligned external text formats for media resources) with respect to the requirements we have collected, which should probably include WebSRT (which now lives at http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#websrt) * assess our previous multitrack API proposal (at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI) and which has not yet found inclusion in HTML5 * assess our previous media text associations proposal (at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations) and which has been adapted into HTML5 in a changed form through the <track> element, see http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#the-track-element * we will also want to assess what other accessibility gaps still exist wrt HTML5 media elements; note e.g. that there is as yet no means to associate external sign language video or external descriptive audio files with a media resource Regards, Silvia. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > Minutes from todays Media teleconference are provided below in text and > are available as html at: > > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html > > W3C > > - DRAFT - > > HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference > > 12 May 2010 > > Agenda > > See also: IRC log > > Attendees > > Present > +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 > > Regrets > Philippe_Le_Hιgaret > > Chair > John_Foliot > > Scribe > silvia > > Contents > > * 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 > > action-27? > > <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 > > action-29? > > <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 > > action-30? > > <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 > > action-31? > > <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 > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01] > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Review use cases section of media requirements document [on Geoff Freed - due > 2010-05-19]. > > <MichaelC> close action-31 > > <trackbot> ACTION-31 Follow up w/ Geoff on comprehensiveness of captioning requirements closed > > action-32? > > <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 > > action-34? > > <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 > > action-35? > > <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 > > action-36? > > <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 > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02] > > <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 > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action03] > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Seek deaf-blind representation in requirements gathering process [on Judy Brewer - due > 2010-05-19]. > > 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? > > +q > > <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 > state > > 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 > support > > 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? > > Judy: > > 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 > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01] > [NEW] ACTION: Judy to organize a cross-check on requirements with JTC-1 user needs repository [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02] > [NEW] ACTION: judy to seek deaf-blind representation in requirements gathering process [recorded in > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action03] > > [End of minutes] > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Found Scribe: silvia > Found Date: 12 May 2010 > People with action items: geoff judy > > -- > > 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 Thursday, 13 May 2010 02:00:24 UTC