- From: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:34:54 -0800
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
- CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Got it. Thanks for clarifying. - m -----Original Message----- From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 3:28 PM To: Eric Carlson Cc: Matt May; HTML Accessibility Task Force Subject: Re: [Minutes] Media Sub Team of the Accessibility Task Force - Feb 2., 2011 Apologies if i seemed off topic, but Eric explained it well. I was just questioning the implicit statement that were made in the teleconference, firstly that SMPTE-TT has widespread support and secondly that it surely will become the specification of choice by the FCC. Since the FCC process has only just started, I was hoping there would be a bit more technical needs analysis and judgement of where things are going. I could, for example, fully understand if the FCC chose both SMPTE-TT and WebVTT as standards for the Internet and the Web respectively. I wouldn't understand if the reasoning that the browser vendors chose to oppose TTML was ignored and SMPTE-TT chosen by default. Cheers, Silvia. On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com> wrote: > > 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 23:36:16 UTC