[media] Minutes of today's Media Subgroup Conference Call

Hi everyone,

The minutes of today's Media Subgroup Meeting are available at
http://www.w3.org/2010/05/26-html-a11y-minutes.html and pasted below.

Best Regards,
Sivia.



- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

26 May 2010

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Janina, Michael_Cooper, Janina_Sajka, John_Foliot, Silvia, Judy,
Sean_Hayes, MikeSmith, frankolivier, allanj, +61.3.986.4.aaaa
Regrets
Geoff_Freed, Eric_Carlson
Chair
John_Foliot
Scribe
silvia
Contents

Topics
Summary of Action Items
<MichaelC> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 26 May 2010
<MichaelC> meeting: Media sub-group - HTML A11Y TF
== Agenda ==
1. Action Review
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/2
action-32
Follow up w/ Gunnar Hellstrom on comprehensiveness of secondary signed
channel requirements
Judy will add requirements as she gets them - not yet received feedback
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/35
<janina> +1 to Sylvia's restructuring of the doc
<MichaelC> close action-45
<trackbot> ACTION-45 Structure requirements into a numbered system closed
frank is working through action-35
<MichaelC> action-35 due 28 May
<trackbot> ACTION-35 Write cues requirements due date now 28 May
silvia restructured the document and added numbered requirements, so
action-45 is fulfilled
actions 42 and 43 by Judy will be updated as Judy receives input
Topic 2. Requirements Gathering (Review)
JF: I'd like to encourage the larger working group to do a review
… we want to wrap this up as quickly as possible
judy, ack
judy: I have some issues with some of the wording in the requirements document
... with permission, I would go in and change those
JF: one of the advantages of the wiki is that if you're a member of
the group, you should edit
… you're best familiar with the correct terminology
judy: e.g. the term learning disability has different meanings in
different parts of Europe
Janina: I think we can do this synchronously and I'm glad Judy is
offering to do this
JF: of all the people on this call, you're probably the best person to do this
Janina: I wanted to discuss if content navigation is system or
authoring technology
Jim: you really need to make sure you create the structure during creation
Janina: so, it is content, because it is important to have it created
during authoring
Jim: yes, but there is also a need to have the navigation technology
JF: this is mostly important for audio - I regard video as the
dominant timeline here
Janina: I don't see a problem with making the video the master timeline
silvia: for both, video and audio, the media will stay in control of
the timeline and the structure points will be associated to them
… so structural navigation applies to both
… since it request lots of authoring, I put it back in the "content" section
… other content technologies also have system requirements
Janina: I think we're on the same page
JF: asking about architectural requirements
Judy: I am also wondering if we need to make further requirements for
how to fit it into the general structure of HTML5
JF: I am wondering how it aligns with the general requirements of WCAG
… e.g. what happens if a video gets onto a Web page and none of the
alternative technologies are provided?
… should we be looking at how to react to that?
Judy: I think we can do that independently in a parallel activity
… could be part of the questions we want to ask in the straw poll
JF: ask whether we have missed something for each section
Judy: we are trying to keep things on a schedule
… we have work to do on the technology side after the requirements
JF: so we're ready for a straw poll?
Judy: what questions are we going to ask in it?
... do we ask per section if ppl agree?
JF: we should go through the list of alternative content technologies
and ask for each if people agree
… we do work against the clock here
… I really want feedback from each TF member that we haven't missed anything
Janina: I've already added it to tomorrow's agenda for the TF to approve this
... I think we need it order section by section
Judy: maybe - did we capture everything, is it clearly expressed, is
something missing, do you agree?
Janina: the reporting day to the HTML TF is tomorrow
… my message will be that we believe we have most of it gathered, but
we are still working on the details and the wording
scribe: I think it's open enough for people to look at it and give us feedback
… I will be presenting this to the HCG on 4th June, next Friday
… happy for people to join with me
… HCG=Hypertext Coordination Group
JF: I really want to get more feedback before opening this to the HTML WG
… the straw poll should do that
… we should have the straw poll this week
Janina: so, the question is what questions we should be asking
<MichaelC> Draft survey on review of media accessibility requirements
Michael: we have a draft of the survey ready for today
… we've added all the requirements in
Judy: so this is a static snapshot of the wiki and asks for accept/comment
… what I am wondering if there is a general question whether we captured all
… the survey we have is a survey on a static snapshot, but the
document will still change
… do we want consensus on the static snapshot or do we want to link to
the document and get feedback on whether we missed anything
<Judy> [judy: did we capture all; are they clear; are they in scope;
do we agree]
JF: I'm trying to get people to speak up now from the bulk of the
quiet participants on this
… rather thank asking them to go into the wiki and change it, I'd
rather have it in the poll
Michael: it's better to ask for input on a static snapshot so everyone
is providing feedback on the same text
Judy: as facilitator for this you can actually ask all people on the
call for their comments
JF: I wonder about the larger task force of something like 40 people
who haven't spoken up
… their wider input would be good
JF: can we make this thing live tomorrow, Michael
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements
Judy: if we can have it go live tomorrow with the changes that we
still make today would be good
Michael: I will be very busy tomorrow with meetings, so would prefer today
JF: if we don't put the survey life before the TF call, we could at
least give everyone a heads-up on the TF call
... we should wait until Judy has her edits in and then Michael can publish it
Janina: I'd like to touch back on structured navigation
... I'd like to capture one of the key things that Daisy does
… in the explanation we talk about forward, back, previous, next
… but also about more granular navigation at different levels of hierarchy
… similar to h1, h2, h3 in html
… where do we need to capture that on the controls?
scribe: I think we captured it in the content markup, but it is now
not in the controls any more
Kenny: I'd like to add to this how we did it in Daisy
… we had different keystrokes to change levels and to navigate between
elements on the same level
… the Daisy players now have particular keys on them to navigate
between these levels
… in a Windows environment, you'd just need a button to move down a
level and shift on that button would move you up a level
JF: we just need to map that navigation to the player
… how about adding it to section 3.1 with the keyboard controls
Janina: I can see many ways to implement this, e.g. for the sighted
people there could be access to the navigation structure by providing
a overview of all the elements and allow to click through
… in the Web world, this isn't yet a common control
JF: maybe rename section 3.1 to not just adhere to keyboard controls
silvia: I wouldn't want to water down 3.1 by removing "keyboard" since
it clearly states all needs to be navigable by keyboard
… the need for content navigation between different levels could
either be added to 2.4 or add a new subsection into 3
Kenny: I think we can do it by extending section 2.4
Janina: I want to make sure people understand this very well
… I will try and add it where it makes sense
… I think it's important to state that there is a need for exposing the control
<AllanJ> +1 to not removing keyboard
JF: maybe we can remove the word "keyboard" still from 3.1 and add the
content navigation there
Jim: I don't want to see it gone, too
silvia: I think we should add the content navigation need to section
2.4 and explain the need for the different hierarchical levels
... and we should add to section 3.1 the need for keyboard
accessibility to these different hierarchical levels
... then we have both captured
JF: ok, we should get the requirements document done by tomorrow and
as close as possible completed
… if we can do the gap analysis now would be good
Topic 3. Other business:
Current proposals:
Multi-track API (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI),
Media Text Associations
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations)
JF: the multitrack API is just a JavaScript API to multiple tracks of
a media resource
silvia: yes, it's not yet part of the changes that Ian has introduced
… it would be good if the TF reinforces the need to introduce this
functionality into HTML5
JF: I have the same perception
… unless somebody has any issues, I would like to add it to the agenda
for tomorrow's call and get it agreed on
Janina: we can add it to the agenda tomorrow
… we should have a resolution here to that effect
proposed resolution: we support the Multitrack API as media subgroup
and propose to move it forward to the HTML5 WG
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI
Janina: have we anything exposed in the requirements document that
would oppose the media multitrack api ?
silvia: in our requirements document we talk about a fair number of
types of tracks and the Multitrack API just exposes these
Jim: and one of the track types could be a strauctural navigation track
Judy: can we clean up the language in the first paragraph of that page
please reload http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI#Rationale
and see if this is better
Sean: I'd like to extend the description of roles in particular with
the track types that the requirements document is now describing
<Judy> [judy: replace 1st sentence wording with: .... uh, this will
take more than a minute. i can send something in the next day or so.]
JF: it seems there are some changes necessary to the wording, so we
may delay this to next week
Judy: in terms of moving quickly, we could have the discussion between
now and next week so we can make the resolution next week
Janina: we need to have a poll out for 48 hours to move it forward
… we can get this done within this week and vote on Tuesday and Wednesday
… then move it forward next week
JF: we want to get the Media Multitrack API survey out on Tuesday, so
people are encouraged to make their proposed changes / discuss on
email before then
… we're out of time
… thanks everyone for joining us on the call
Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 23:39:12 UTC