Re: [Minutes] Media Sub Team of the Accessibility Task Force - Feb 2., 2011

On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Matt May wrote:

> I fail to see how this has anything to do with accessibility, or SMPTE, or timed text.
> 
  I guess you missed the telecon. 

  Silvia asked if SMPTE-TT was widely tested (or even deployed) yet. Geoff said that there was little implementation so far but held up UltraViolet as a "major" supporter:

> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
> 

  It isn't really reflected in the meeting minutes, but Geoff stressed the multi-vendor buy-in for UltraViolet as an indication that SMPTE-TT would have wide adoption and acceptance.

eric



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:40 AM
> To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
> Subject: Re: [Minutes] Media Sub Team of the Accessibility Task Force - Feb 2., 2011
> 
> As is my nature, I am curious about the FCC and SMPTE-TT work. So,
> I've looked around a bit.
> 
> Ultraviolet is a cloud-based DRM system standardized by a consortium
> of Movie studios, Sony, Adobe Systems, Cisco, HP, Microsoft, Neustar,
> Intel and several others, see http://www.uvvu.com/alliance-members.php
> . It is not available anywhere yet. Not part of the consortium are,
> amongst others, Apple and Google (should that tell us that it's not
> about the Web?). It's still questionable whether it will be the DRM
> system of choice for the market once it comes out, but certainly many
> are working towards that.
> 
> Anyway - it seems there is a lot happening around specifications for
> Internet services - whether it's all good for the Web is a very
> different question for me. Is the FCC actually looking at Web
> standards or is it only concerned with TV services when delivered over
> the Internet (not the Web)? Actually, even their mission statement
> never uses the word "Web" and only every talks about Internet. I
> wonder how much their agenda is driven by the TV and Movie industry
> rather than native online services.
> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> (speaking all for myself here)
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> 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 Friday, 4 February 2011 20:40:53 UTC