- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:15:54 +1100
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Note the following typo: s/SYMPTI TT/SMPTE-TT/ Cheers, Silvia. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > Minutes from the HTML-A11Y Task Force's Media Subteam teleconference are > provided below as text. They're also available as html at: > http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-html-a11y-minutes.html > > W3C > > - DRAFT - > > HTML-A11Y telecon > > 09 Feb 2011 > > See also: IRC log > > Attendees > > Present > Silvia, John, janina, Eric, Judy > > Regrets > Sean, Geoff > > Chair > John_Foliot > > Scribe > janina > > Contents > > * Topics > 1. Identify Scribe > 2. Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open > 3. Issue-152 Multitrack API http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0079.html > 4. Time Tracks Feedback from Google http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html > 5. Are we done with Time Tracks? > 6. Poster Issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0054.html > * Summary of Action Items > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > <scribe> agenda: this > > Identify Scribe > > <scribe> scribe: janina > > Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open > > <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 > > <JF> action-96 > > <silvia> clost action-88 > > <silvia> close action-88 > > <trackbot> ACTION-88 Review Media Fragment URI 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100624/ closed > > <silvia> action-96? > > <trackbot> ACTION-96 -- Eric Carlson 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 > > close action-96 > > <trackbot> ACTION-96 Media Sub Team to revisit bug 11395 (Use media queries to select appropriate <track> elements) > closed > > <silvia> Dave and Eric decided it would be too complex to extend media queries for this purpose > > <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-152 Multitrack API http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0079.html > > Silvia: WG wants change proposals by Feb 21 > ... Has a proposal, asking for feedback > > <silvia> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API > > Silvia: I prefer solution #1 > ... People should read the wiki and indicate their preferences > ... Also a proposal that defines a position on screen for the element (which can be changed with CSS) > ... Microsoft had been for option #2 > ... We need continued discussion, as different people prefer different solutions > > Eric: Will do so later today > ... Favoring option #2 with mod of having src element inside track to accomodate different encodings > ... I've pinged Frank, but not heard back yet > > John: Asking about #7 > ... is it correct that sign video track would be positioned using css? > ... PIP might be too smal on handhel, no? > ... Wereas, if independent, could do better sizing > > Silvia: Yes, that's an advantage of #7 > ... These are some of the points it would be good to see on list > > Eric: Why can't that also via track element? > > Silvia: Would imply too fundamental changes, currently track only renders on viewport and nowhere else on page > ... Track currently can't have children > ... Don't know if that's open to mod in the WG? > > Eric: Suspect we'll discuss any of these in the WG, even though it's late in the timeline, it's just been postponed > > John: Didn't we identify a user req to position anywhere? > > Eric: Yes, but not possible with spec as it is now > > Silvia: Would be through js > ... So, possible but not simple > ... Proposing to widden the discussion > > Judy: Proposing it should be on the W3C list > ... It's a critical piece of getting a11y addressed in W3C, so wouldn't make sense to not have it on W3C > > Silvia: Problem is I've had no response on the W3C list > > Judy: So, we should figure how to get the discussion going > > Silvia: No reason to take it off, but should not be a problem widdening the discussion > ... Just wonder if it makes sense to post to the WG list > > Judy: Maybe that's why there's no response yet. > > John: My concern is to avoid multiple discussions, too many gotchya possibilities. > > Silvia: I'll keep track and report, but I want more opinions. > > Eric: Agree, this topic is too important > ... We had this discussion sometime ago, and it's not progressing. > > Judy: Thought the reason it's been silent is that more work was anticipated? Not so? > > Silvia: The "More work part" is more discussion. > ... Don't want a solution that's had too little vetting. > ... I don't mean anything official--just to communicate what we're considering. > > Judy: Important point is that we need to move forward and have a wider discussion > > John: Do we revisit this next week? With the sense of a decision from the TF? > > Silvia: Makes sense. > > John: OK, any more on this? > > Judy: One question: Given discussion is being raised in the broader group, has there been any feedback that we should > chase down? > > Janina: Yes, we should solicit feedback from a11y people with experience on this, NCAM, DAISY, etc > > John: More on this? > > Time Tracks Feedback from Google http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html > > John: An executive overview? > > Silvia: So, I'm currently contracted to Google and have been working on this ... > ... Teams from Chrome, YouTube, a11y, looking at WebSRT, track element > ... Checked out 608 and 708 (used in U.S.) > ... We're happy about a name change from WebSRT to WebVTT, in good part because SRT has negative reputation around > copyright infringement > > Judy: Question: When looking at U.S. reqs, were you looking at the FCC reqs? > > Silvia: At Google's reqs > ... The two existing standards for captions on TV > ... These have limited set of features, insufficient for our reqs > ... But, we want to replicate everything in 608 and 708 > > Judy: Yes, but my question is different ... > ... Since you're looking at U.S. reqs, did you consider the FCC VPAAC reqs. You're aware of VPAAC? > > Silvia: Unaware they've produced a req doc? > ... Understand only a general req > > Eric: General req to carry captions in current broadcast video when broadcast over Internet > ... Sounds like they have basis to believe it will meet reqs from VPAAC > > Judy: There are also issues about emergency crawls, voicing of those, etc. including on the web > ... The reqs aren't mapped in the statute, but my impression is that there will be more reqs than previous practice > > Silvia: So, I guess the answer is: "No, we didn't look at that." > > Eric: Google is on the committee, yes? > > Judy: Yes, but the committee's barely started. Only one meeting so far, and there's not yet been an opportunity to get > a fuller understanding > ... Geoff did post his understanding that FCC would not mandate a protocol for this > ... There may be some clarification to that, as the charge for VPAAC is to produce guidance > > Silvia: So, the email summarizes our results ... > ... Discusses gaps on WebVTT -- also what we want to see improved > ... I'm currently working on a js implementation for all this > ... Think we're currently converging on changes needed to WebVTT, and they're not very large > > John: Anything we need to consider? > > Silvia: Don't think so--if any questions, happy to involve everyone in a discussion > > John: Duplicate track? Not sure what the answer should be? Is there? > > Silvia: Philip responded duplicate is same lang and same type format; answer just display both in the menu > > Janina: Because independent alternate media authors may have produced a second version, same lang, same type > > Eric: Correct, but spec says only one, and that's guidance for authors > ... Text is just guidance for authors, so from that perspective it's reasonable > > John: Should we seek better spec? > ... To specifically say that both should be made available in the menu? > > Silvia: Sounds like a reasonable bug, and makes it easier to conform across browsers > > John: Just thinking of making things as robust as possible > ... Might as well get it into the spec, rather than by precedent, because there could be not so great precedent > > Janina: Agree > > John: I'll file > > <JF> silvia, are you still on IRC? > > John: Anything else? > > Silvia: Would ask people to read through our results and respond with their thoughts. > > Are we done with Time Tracks? > > John: Anything more we should say? > > Judy: Let me try ... On the broader question > ... The question remains a concern. There may be no other way, and considering the impace downstream is important ... > ... Is there a point for this group to comment? > > John: That's the question. > ... Market forces will decide what each browser does ... > > Judy: But, there's also continued discussion re our reqs > > Eric: I have concerns with SMPTE-TT, now that I've read the spec, from an a11y perspective, specifically with > background image handling > > Judy: Agree there are things to look at there > ... My understanding is that VPAAC won't mandate, but will comment on appropriatness of various options > > <silvia> +q > > Judy: Understand there are strong leanings on the part of some stakeholders > ... We're also looking at this in W3C > ... Curious to learn more about the background image issue > ... W3C needs to be responsive to the entire field--all stakeholders > > Eric: Not sure that background is necessarily harmful to a11y, but analgous to CSS background-image--and we should have > a discussion > > Judy: Agree we should understand it better. Let's do > > Eric: Happy to do so > > Silvia: Done a prelim on SYMPTE TT; agree with Eric, unclear what we get if we use it > ... If I understand correctly, one key purpose is to get legacy content onto the web with captions, using Internet as a > transport, not necessarily as web content > ... It's an exchange format, so makes sense to use for encapsulating and transporting; But that doesn't necessarily > imply presentation > > Judy: Curious to explore something on this ... > ... Understand that's the basis of their approach, have heard this elsewhere as well > ... Not as convinced that some of the broadcast people aren't also looking at using it on the web > ... Are you certain that there aren't already entities forseeing use of TT for web delivery? > ... Don't think this answers what W3C should do, just trying to clarify our understanding of where people are coming > from > > Silvia: I was trying to understand how the SYMPTE standard came to be > ... e.g. there aqre binary captions in legacy content > ... Transformational and transport formats aren't necessarily the best choices for web presentation > ... We have to deal with the converging world, and we have these two groups coming from different perspectives > ... Don't know if we can consolidate the two > ... May be delivered across the net, but not delivered via a browser > > Judy: Very helpful, Silvia. I appreciate your perspective. > > Janina: Suspect browser will emerge because there are also a11y reqs on the user interface now > > John: Or plugins, which I expect > > Judy: Several people are wondering about convergence possibilities > > John: With a few minutes left, I want to recap ... > ... Judy, you mentioned a two week timeline? > > Judy: W3C is participating on the VPAAC, we're there to be helpful and explain what we're working on, but we don't have > a position > ... We'd like to bring info as up to date and as useful as possible, so very interested in our analysis of SYMPTE TT vs > W3C TTML > ... Then the a11y relevance > ... So, the possibility of convergence before many years go by with people working in different formats, that's an > important question. > > John: Specifically we've a pressing timeline for multitrack api, just thinking in terms of time alltoment here > > Judy: Don't have a good answer right now. > ... Perhaps 20 minutes on the SMPTE next week? Three of us have looked at it already? > > <Judy> s/SYMPI/SMPT/ > > Silvia: Suggesting Eric and I look more closely at SMPTE-TT, and also Judy, so we should discuss it > > John: Just concerned we conclude on multitrack > > akim, next item > > Poster Issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0054.html > > John: Nothing to add ... > > Janina: Pf interested that we have screenshots to mark up for the two proposals, that we not leave this to a handwave > > rrsagent make minutes > > Summary of Action Items > > [End of minutes] > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Found Scribe: janina > Regrets: Sean, Geoff > > > -- > > Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net > > Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org > Linux Foundation http://a11y.org > > Chair, Protocols & Formats > Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > > >
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 00:16:48 UTC