- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:03:50 -0800 (PST)
- To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
The minutes from the 2 February 2011 Media Sub Team can be accessed as hypertext from: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/02-html-a11y-minutes.html ...and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please report any errors, clarifications, mis-attributions, and the like by replying-to this announcement on-list JF ***** HTML-A11Y telecon 02 Feb 2011 See also: IRC log Attendees Present Regrets Chair Janina_Sajka Scribe JF Contents * Topics 1. Identify Scribe 2. Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open 3. Time Tracks Feedback from Google http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html * Summary of Action Items <janina> agenda: this Identify Scribe <scribe> scribe: JF Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open <silvia> close Action-98 <trackbot> ACTION-98 Create a statement with geoff to forward need for caption and description techniques for wcag closed JF: re Action 98, posted draft to the list for CFC, and no feedback received should forward to the appropriate stake holders <silvia> Action-88? <trackbot> ACTION-88 -- Sean Hayes to review Media Fragment URI 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100624/ -- due 2010-11-24 -- OPEN <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/88 <silvia> Action-96? <trackbot> ACTION-96 -- John Foliot to media Sub Team to revisit bug 11395 (Use media queries to select appropriate <track> elements) -- due 2011-01-06 -- OPEN <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/96 Re: Action 88 - will leave as is, needs to go back to PF <Sean> can you make the due date on 88 end of March Issue 96 reassign to Eric Carlson <silvia> close Action-97 <trackbot> ACTION-97 Follow up on bug #9673 closed Issue 97 - to be closed <silvia> Action-99? <trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Janina Sajka to annotate 9452 with clear audio discovery and selection, as well as independent control of multiple playback tracks -- due 2011-01-19 -- OPEN <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/99 Issue 99 Time Tracks Feedback from Google http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html Ad agenda item - overview of FCC status/situation <Judy> http://www.fcc.gov/cib/dro/VPAAC/ Judy: VPAAC - Video Programming Accessibility Action Commitee recommend to look at the Mission Statement (Word Doc: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303943A1.doc) meetings and actions with tight time-lines around video accessibility - captioning and descriptive audio some awareness of work that is happening at W3C Janina: interested to understand what this applies to, penalties, etc. Geoff: there will also be rules about amount of video description as well as requirements for emergency information they are also looking at getting television shows already captioned for on-air broadcast, must also move to the web this now involves SMPTE and SMPTE TT will likey emerge as a recommendation from the committee Janina: unless we find accessibility issues with this this will potentially inovolve massive amounts of programming (TV shows) including older content as well as future content +q <silvia> +q Judy: can we get differences between SMPTE TT (which is a derivitive of TTML) adds the ability to add background images, as well as binary data also some additional metadata content JF: are broadcasters aware of the browser vendors will or wont support? Sean: we can already support, doesn't require native support for this to work. will likely wait to see how the market plays out Silvia: SMPTE TT is a new format, how much content is currently available Geoff: there is not yet a lot of implementation, but there is one major support - UltraViolet - which is a DRM-like solution to view content from the cloud since SMPTE TT is based on TTML, there is potential for growth Eric: is SMPTE a full profile subset of TTML? Sean: yes Judy: with this superset nature of SMPTE TT to what extent are the added features - things that align with accessibility user requirements that we've uncovered? Sean: the addition of images was from a request from asian territories they would rather not use actual fonts, and rather have images as more 'hand-drawn' character-sets the binary data is mostly for commercial requirements, for set-top boxes, etc. not really for user-benefit, but rather operator-benefit Janina: one of the other things coming from the FCC work is requirements for devices being sold in the US market, there will be more of these types of devices, and more regs to follow <kenny_j> Need to drop off the call for another meeting. bye all. Synopsis of questions re: time Tracks Silvia: the track element allows us to associate external caption files, sub-title files and other text files to videos Judy: is there a mechanism that can discover those assets +q ERic: the track element is for things that have timing with them so if the description has timing info thta needs to be displayed in sync with the video, then it is appropriate to use track element Sean: we've identified that there is no mechanism for labeling a transcript as such - there is no semantic link-up at this time <gfreed> geoff needs to go-- will read the minutes later this evening. Judy: a case can be made that access to a transcript would serve certain user needs for a11y +q Janina: we've identified that if there is timing data, that it should be linked to the video, but even if a transcript has no timing it may need to be programmatically associated to the video none-the-less Judy: the order of presentation /positioning that has been a problem in the past if we are trying to support multple media formats - foolproof discoverablility and sharability discussion about discoverability versus mechanisms for delivery ERic: discussion is not that there is disagreement on this, but how we deliver it - in sync (with time) it makes no sense to try and repurpose track and source for non-time-aligned content how does the content author package it Judy: so do we need another element? <silvia> s- given that we are under a very tight timeline at this point? eric: don't think we need a different/new element echos silvia's observation thta at transcript would be avialable for all users +Q <Judy> eric: you could just do the association with an attribute <Judy> jf: that would take us down the same path as with longdesc <Judy> ...we need to be able to package the transcript in some way that makes it available to users, not just visible on screen <silvia> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API Janina: bottom line is that we do not have a means of associating a transcript to a the video resource whether an element or an attribute silvia are you on mute? <janina> Silvia, we don't hear you <Sean> try redialling. not hearing you Judy: we should record everything we can in terms of what is still open Silvia: we should have an email discussion on transcript (JF will check for that bug and post to the list) eric: when the durations are not the same - it's not an issue when they are not the same, but rather when the internal timing information are not the same when segments of one don't exactly overlap segments of the other there is no way of describing those associations Silvia: on the multi-track API summarize from discussions and an email thread from last fall - will summarize into a wiki page for further discussion we re-start a new mail thread Janina, another isue is if the user wants to control the secondary content - change font size, colors, adjust audio levels, etc. Janina: on one hand, this is very specific to Operating Systems but what we should be discussing is a systematic way for authors to create content, and signify this to the browser
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2011 23:04:24 UTC