W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [media] progress on multitrack api - issue-152

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:32:21 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson (ian@hixie.ch)" <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <8DEFC0D8B72E054E97DC307774FE4B91442CE2CD@DB3EX14MBXC313.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
If the clarifications I proposed last week are included (i.e. to indicate expressly that the <video> element operates on audio only data, and has a display rectangle to renders captions into, even if there is no video data supplied), then I would formally withdraw my CP in favor of Proposal 4 as amended.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: 18 April 2011 12:49
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Re: [media] progress on multitrack api - issue-152

Note that I have certainly missed issues, so do speak up if you've
noticed anything.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> In the last media subgroup meeting we further discussed the different
> change proposals that we have for issue-152.
> A summary of all the submitted change proposals is at
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Change_Proposals_Summary
> .
> We discussed that Proposal 4 can, with a few changes, provide for the
> requirements of in-band and externally composed multitrack resources.
> Proposal 4 introduces an interface for in-band audio and video tracks,
> and a Controller object to maintain the shared state between the
> individual media elements that together make up a composed multitrack
> resource.
> This email serves two purposes:
> Firstly it asks others on the accessibility task force whether there
> are any objections to going with proposal 4 (Philip?, Geoff?). The
> people present at the meeting agreed that they would be prepared to
> withdraw their change proposals in favor of proposal 4. This include
> all proposals numbered 1 to 3 on the summary page.
> Secondly it summarizes the remaining issues that we would like
> addressed for proposal 4.
> The remaining issues are:
> (1) videoTracks should be MultipleTrackList, too:
> The current HTMLMediaElement has the following IDL to expose in-band
> media tracks:
>  readonly attribute MultipleTrackList audioTracks;
>  readonly attribute ExclusiveTrackList videoTracks;
> The objection is to the use of ExclusiveTrackList on videoTracks. It
> should be allowed to have multiple in-band video tracks activated at
> the same time. In particular it seems that MP4 files have a means of
> specifying how multiple video tracks should be displayed on screen and
> Safari is already able to display such.
> In contrast, proposal 4 requires that only one in-band video track can
> be active and displayed into the video viewport at one time. If more
> than one video track is to be displayed, it needs to be specified with
> a media fragment URI in a separate video element and connected through
> a controller.
> Some questions here are: what do other browsers want to do with
> multiple in-band video tracks? Does it make sense to restrict the
> display to a single video track? Or should it be left to the browser
> what to do - in which case a MultipleTrackList approach to videoTracks
> would be sensible? If MultipleTrackList is sensible for audio and
> video, maybe it could further be harmonized with TextTrack.
> (2) interface on TrackList:
> The current interface of TrackList is:
>  readonly attribute unsigned long length;
>  DOMString getName(in unsigned long index);
>  DOMString getLanguage(in unsigned long index);
>           attribute Function onchange;
> The proposal is that in addition to exposing name and language
> attributes - in analogy to TextTrack it should also expose a label and
> a kind.
> The label is necessary to include the track into menus for track
> activation/deactivation.
> The kind is necessary to classify the track correctly in menus, e.g.
> as sign language, audio description, or even a transparent caption
> track.
> (3) looping should be possible on combined multitrack:
> In proposal 4 the loop attribute on individual media elements is
> disabled on multitrack created through a controller, because it is not
> clear what looping means for the individual element.
> However, looping on a multitrack resource with in-band tracks is well
> defined and goes over the complete resource.
> In analogy, it makes sense to interpret loop on a combined multitrack
> resource in the same way. Thus, the controller should also have a
> muted attribute which is activated when a single loop attribute on a
> slave media element is activated and the effect should be to loop over
> the combined resource, i.e. when the duration of the controller is
> reached, all slave media elements' currentTime-s are reset to
> initialPlaybackPosition.
> (4) autoplay should be possible on combined multitrack:
> Similar to looping, autoplay could also be defined on a combined
> multitrack resource as the union of all the autoplay settings of all
> the slaves: if one of them is on autoplay, the whole combined resource
> is.
> (5) more events should be available for combined multitrack:
> The following events should be available in the controller:
> * onloadedmetadata: is raised when all slave media elements have
> reached at minimum a readyState of HAVE_METADATA
> * onloadeddata: is raised when all slave media elements have reached
> at minimum a readyState of HAVE_CURRENT_DATA
> * canplaythrough: is raised when all slave media elements have reached
> at minimum a readyState of HAVE_FUTURE_DATA
> * onended: is raised when all  slave media elements are in ended state
> or said differently: these events are raised when the last slave in a
> group reaches that state.
> These are convenience events that will for example help write combined
> transport bars. It is easier to attach just a single event handler to
> the controller than to attach one to each individual slave and make
> sure they all fire. Also, they help to maintain the logic of when a
> combined resource is loaded. Since these are very commonly used
> events, their introduction makes sense.
> Alternatively or in addition, readyState could be added to the controller.
> (6) controls on slaves control the combined multitrack:
> Proposal 4 does not provide any information on what happens with media
> elements when the @controls attribute is specified. Do the controls
> stay in sync with the controls of the other elements? Do they in fact
> represent combined state? Do they represent the state of the slave
> resource? What happens when the user interacts with them? Is the
> information on the interaction - in particular seeking, muting, volume
> change, play/pause change, rate change - handed on to the controller
> and do the others follow?
> Hopefully we can move forward on all of these issues before the 22nd
> April deadline for issue-152.
> Best Regards,
> Silvia.
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 15:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:54 UTC