(Reconstructed) Minutes from Media Subteam Teleconference

iColleagues:

The minutes from the HTML-A11Y Task Force Media Subteam teleconference on Wednesday 30 March are provided below. Because rrsagent wasn't cooperating, these minutes are reconstructed from my IRC client buffer log. I have taken the opportunity to delete most of the teleconference management related messages, i.e. zakim commands.

Attendees: John Foliot, Janina Sajka, Judy Brewer, Silvia Pfeiffer, Eric Carlson, Sean Hayes
Scribe: John Foliot (JF)


<JF> agenda+    Identify Scribe
<JF> agenda+ Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
<JF> agenda+    Time of this Teleconference: OK or change it?
<JF> agenda+    Issue-152 Multitrack
<JF> agenda+ Multi-Level Navigation & Poster: Can we meld them?
<JF> agenda+    Other Business?
<JF> agenda+ be done
<Sean> I'm on a mobile, on hotel balcony. lot of traffic noise
* silvia I am trying to find a meeting room at Google with a phone - rather difficult
<JF> scribe: JF
<JF> Judy: request that we re-order agenda
<JF> might not have everyone on the call
<JF> for the full duration
<JF> zakim, take up item 1
<Zakim> agendum 1. "Identify Scribe" taken up [from JF]
<JF> zakim, take up item 2
<Zakim> agendum 2. "Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open" taken up [from JF]
<JF> Janina: still working on the my one action item, not yet finished
<JF> zakim, take up item 3
<Zakim> agendum 3. "Time of this Teleconference: OK or change it?" taken up [from JF]
<JF> Janina: does changing our time back one hour affect Silvia?
<JF> Judy: continuing at this time is difficult for members on the East coast of North America
<JF> Silvia: I need to check time changes in Oz
<JF> (exploring the possibility of shifting by 30 minutes)
<JF> Janina: propose we resolve this via email before next week
<JF> zakim, take up item 4
<Zakim> agendum 4. "Issue-152 Multitrack" taken up [from JF]
<JF> Janina: after many emails, and questions of timing, where are we at?
<JF> it seemed obvious at the F2F that we were all of a sudden further away from resolution than we thought
<JF> how much more time do we need? Is irt really important to get this in before last Call?
<JF> Judy: I have 1 question for feedback
<JF> in terns of fact check, my impression is that while this issue started late, it appears to be moving rapidly and
           constructively
<JF> is this accurate? if not why not?
<JF> ERic: Believes you are correct
<JF> Silvia: agrees
<Sean> Ian needs to engage too
<JF> Silvia: there remains a lot of open issue to resolve however. We are making progress, and unearthing issues, we are far
           from unanimity
<JF> but certainly not by friday
<JF> Judy: understanding that one of the co-chairs was to ask for a consensus position by Friday, or let this be resolved after
           Last Call document be published
<JF> my concern with this is that this is a significant requirement for feature complete requirements
<silvia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Mar/0214.html
<silvia> "In particular, if everybody agrees -- as in, there is no dissent -- we
<silvia> will gladly mark ISSUE-152 as a Last Call issue, take it off the
<silvia> critical path for now, and leave the issue OPEN to be resolved later,
<silvia> with plenty of opportunity to still be included in HTML5."
<Sean> Agree with Eric
<JF> Eric: wants to add to what silvia said - not only are we not at a place to arrive at consensus at this time, however none
           of the authors are completely happy with existing proposals either
<JF> Don't believe we will reach consensus by Friday
<JF> may never reach unanimity, but we will get to a point were there are fewer proposals, and 'better' proposals
<JF> Judy: just want to register concern about the question/timeline as being framed
<JF> suggest we get to actual technical issue discussion
<JF> Silvia: not sure what the process issue is
<JF> Judy: understand that multi-track issue is required to be feature complete
<JF> and W3c process requires that Last Call be feature complete
<Sean> Adding this after last call would require going back to working draft. However that is likely anyway
<JF> however, let's focus on getting closer to technical consensus
<JF> Janina: Judy is exploring larger issues w.r.t. process
<JF> Silvia; by reading IRC logs, it seems that the chairs are expecting a second last call
<JF> Judy: believe that this is not the case
<JF> knowing that a follow on last Call in the next calendar year, that features will be lost on that
<JF> Silvia: the other way to deal with this is
<JF> Ian's spec at WHATWG has not been added to the W3C spec
<silvia> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#media-resources-with-multiple-media-tracks
<JF> if that moves into the W3C spec, we have a placeholder in the spec that can be further refined
<JF> the question then is, do we recommend to adopt this now, and then use that as a starting point
<Sean> q+ While I see some good things in Ians proposal I'm not happy with it being moved in as is
<JF> Eric: there are some good things in Ian's spec, and others that make no sense.
<JF> want to wait to see what ian does based upon feedback he has received
<JF> Judy: agrees with Eric and Sean's comments; this would be an unusual approach. Would be interested in seeing what this
           group could come up with as a proposal
<JF> eric: what happens if we miss the proposed deadline with nothing in it now?
<JF> Judy: at this time there is nothing in the W3c spec. given that this is a significant requirement, and it is not there,
           then it would likely generate a Fromal objection
<JF> since Last Call requirements is that Last Call is Feature complete
<JF> ther is concern about time-lines
<JF> in order to make progress, we need proposals
<JF> the most important thing now is to try and make progress on consensus
<JF> JF: what seems to be the largest sticking point right now?
<Sean> it is going to be hard for me to engage in a technical debate
<JF> Sean: I have a few detailed points that don't seem to be being addressed
<JF> there are a few things that seem to be fundamentally opposed by people
<JF> but I think that if we can address some issues, I can come up with a proposal that works fo r me
<JF> Silvia: one of the most key points seems that Sean wants to pull out all of the track elements so that they are top level
           elements
<JF> is this still the case, are you adamant about this
<JF> Sean: issue is that the captions are bound to the video window
<JF> what I care about is that they can be placed outside of the video retangle
<JF> so this is just another way of looking at how the CSS would be looking at this
<JF> Silvia: would it help if via CSS we could influence where the track is rendered
<JF> Sean: the issue is that video is constrained to be in the viewport
<JF> Silvia: this can be done already
<JF> Sean; I want to be able to do this without having to manually pull them out and then re-insert them into the DOM
<JF> Silbvia: isn't this part of the 80/20 rule today?
<JF> Sean: this is probably the case today, however that is the TV model. On the web we have more/other real estate
<JF> (+1 to Sean from JF)
<JF> Silvia: if we don't do this by default, then the author needs to do extra work to place the captions on top of the video
<JF> this can be done using CSS as the default, however doing the other is not possible right now
<JF> Sean: sees this as analogous to the <map> element
<JF> user agent 'knows' that normally this is bound to the video rectangle
<Sean> my current thinking http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/ESH_Media_Multitrack
<JF> issue surrounding in-band and out-of-band tracks
<JF> Eric; we need to come up with a solution that works for both'
* silvia we have lost Eric - hold on, Sean
<Zakim> +Eric_Carlson
<JF> (ongoing discussion on using CSS for placement of the track location
<JF> Sean: no problem with adding a cue pseudo element
<JF> you would still need to know that they exist
* JF John is afraid to ask a naive question
<JF> Silvia: does this sound like we can agree to keep track as a child element of video?
<JF> Sean: yes, thta is not the issue
<JF> the question is whether or not the video is a view port or not
<JF> Silvia: can you explain how you want to see the video if it is not a view port? how should the layout be?
<JF> SEan: it's a containing box in term of CSS
<JF> Silvia; where should the track be rendered?
<JF> Sean inside that containing box
<JF> that is the default
<JF> Silvia: the pseudo selector would address the rectangle where the track is rendered. would this solve the problem?
<JF> Sean; perhaps, yes
<JF> seems a long-winded way to do it, but yes it would likely work
<JF> Eric; do you have an alternative solution that would work for in-band and out of band?
<JF> Sean: seems that track pseudo selector might work, need to think it through more fully, but sounds plausible
<Zakim> -silvia
<JF> Eric: does it make sense to file a bug against the existing track specification, so that we can get this out of the way,
           so that we can continue to move toward consensus on the larger multi-track issue
* silvia sorry, I have to find another phone
* judy ... silvia, eric is re-capping some of the discussion for us...
<JF> ERic: if we can get this as a bug, then this will help progress
* silvia that excellent
<JF> Judy: sounds good to separate out the pieces of dissension so that we can focus on what we agree on
<Sean> i think it makes sense. ::track would need to work no text and video in band implicit tracks
<JF> Judy: if we can get Silvia to confirm that this is good, then we can continue to move on.
<silvia> I agree - I also wanted to have this registered as a separate bug to the multitrack discussion
<Sean> however one glitch I see is ::track working on video that is an element part of a mediagroup
<silvia> I think we should capture our thoughts in a wiki page and then send it through as a bug to the HTML WG
<JF> Judy: are there other issues around the multi-track issue?
<JF> Eric: what I think makes sense is to wait and see what Ian responds with. he does understand the issue, and has thought
           through some of the aspects with the media content that is out there
<JF> i don't agree with everything he proposes, and apple has given him feedback on what we like and don't like
<JF> Sean: it would be helpful to have this discussion in one place - W3C
<JF> Judy: does it make any sense to try and re-convene tomorrow, based on Eric's comments and Seans need to have the
           discussion here
<JF> This issue is an important one for the IE team and we'd like to see progress towards including changes in the spec before
           Last Call based on the existing timetable. The current discussion is helpful and I believe that we've all learned
           from the last couple of weeks.
<JF> The issue status page [1] shows 6 other surveys in progress at the moment and I don't think it's necessary for this issue
           to be forced to move forward at the same time.
<JF> I would like to suggest a little time for Change Proposals to be updated with the recent new information before proceeding
           with the survey. This should be at least one week.
<JF> Please can the chairs consider this proposal as a compromise between moving forward with the existing survey and
           postponing the whole issue until after Last Call?
<JF> Thanks,
<JF> Adrian.
* silvia I cannot find a free phone, sorry
<JF> Janina: we just need a bit more time: a week or a few weeks at most
<JF> Judy: the chairs do need time to turn everything into a draft to bring back to the group
<JF> it is not casual to say the difference of a week or 2 or a month - this has a huge process impact on the chairs
<JF> Sean; if we can get everyone who cares about this to work solidly on this for a week or two, then we could likely get to
           the end. but if people wander off then we won't succeed
<JF> the question is, can we get to consensus proposla in 2 weeks if we work hard on this?
<janina> Silvia?
<silvia> I'd be happy for a few more phone conferences to discuss this further - we just need to be aware that there is also
           Mozilla and Opera who may again have different opinions
<JF> Janina: setting something like this up is do-able
<JF> it seems that real-time dialog is getting us progress
<silvia> I think amongst us that were at the F2F we should be able to get to something - seeing as Frank isn't here today
           either, I am not even sure we have all opinions covered right now
<JF> Judy: encouraged to see how we are moving forward when we get rolling
<JF> Eric: silvia knows Chris double better than i do, but she could likely ask him to join us
<silvia> question: would it make sense to create another wiki page with the set of proposals under discussion, including Ian's,
           so we have a basis for another round of discussions?
<JF> Janina: we should canvas via email to see if we can find alternate times, or establish a good time.
<JF> Eric: believe it might be fruitful to continue via email before setting up an additional teleconference
<silvia> Eric: Chris Double is not doing much on the video element any more - I might be able to encourage Chris Pearce - I had
           feedback from Robert O'Callahan that he preferred option 6 approach before our F2F and a similar opinion was stated
           on the mailing list by Philip
<JF> Silvia there is agreement to your proposal - we look forward to seeing your wiki page ,smile>
<silvia> :-)
<Sean> ok I'm gonna get to bed. I'm mostly open next week
<JF> Eric: my schedule through the early part of next week is complicated, I might be harder to get involved, but will do my
           best
* judy thanks to all!
<Zakim> Attendees were +1.650.862.aaaa, John_Foliot, +44.787.509.aabb, Sean_Hayes, Janina_Sajka, Eric_Carlson, Judy,
           +61.2.937.4.aacc, silvia
* silvia thanks - and sorry about dropping out - we're in a hard spot in Sydney right now because everyone is moving


-- 

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, 31 March 2011 01:09:12 UTC