[MEDIA] Minutes for Media Sub-Group 14 JULY 2014

Thanks to everyone who attended today's Media Sub-Group meeting.  Below are the
minutes in HTML and text format.

HTML:
http://www.w3.org/2014/07/14-html-a11y-media-minutes.html

TEXT:
     [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

      HTML Accessibility Task Force Media Sub Group Teleconference

14 Jul 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/07/14-html-a11y-media-irc

Attendees

   Present
          janina_, Mark_Sadecki, wuwei, pal, McCarron, nigel,
          Kazuyuki, JF

   Regrets
          daniel davis

   Chair
          Mark Sadecki

   Scribe
          janina

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Identify Scribe
         2. [5]TTML Issue 309 Text equivalent for caption images
         3. [6]Edits to Media Accessibility User Requirements
         4. [7]Media Accessibility User Requirements Comment
            Responses
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 14 July 2014

   <MarkS> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Media Sub-Group

Identify Scribe

   <scribe> scribe: janina

TTML Issue 309 Text equivalent for caption images

   <MarkS> [9]http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/309

      [9] http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/309

   ms: Our TTML guests are here to get our opinion on resolving
   this issue

   n: variant 1: allows text to be specified purely as text
   ... variant 2: refs to images
   ... In reviewing this, though it would fail wcag
   ... issue is alternative text
   ... another solution under discussion is to allow some kind of
   alt against each image

   p: to continue the background ...

   p: ttml includes spec to deliver subtitle and captions, world
   wide

   p: includes industry participation, movies, tv

   p: The above "variants" are subprofiles of the above

   p: there are reasons why images are necessary sometimes

   p: sometimes artistic reasons, but also lack of gliphs in some
   langs

   jf: These are images loaded as against timeline?

   p: yes

   p: e.g. embeddeed in mp4 multiplex

   jf: mostly for foreign lang?

   P: in practice charsets that are not in unicode yet, but also
   some artistic reasons, iconography, ringing telephone,

   <JF> zakim: John_Foliot is JF

   JS: we are already at some level in an edge case. Looking to
   provide alt seems like its more than necessary. the point is to
   cover everyones needs, not necessarily all in the same
   technology. if we have a transcript, we probably don't need alt
   for images in captions.
   ...its already possible to cover all the needs we are talking
   about here, just using different tech.

   JF: much of this could be solved using metadata, like that
   specified on schema.org
   ...if you have document with time-stamping that references
   images, as long as you have the same content available in
   another format, we should be OK

   jf: agreeing to analysis based on supporting users, using
   metadata to enumerate available alternatives

   p: as with lang

   jf: yes

   <Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask if we need to permit all needs
   to be covered in a single document or if it is okay to permit
   content providers to meet some needs by providing an alternate

   n: wonders about use case where captions are used for tts

   <JF> more info about Schema.org+Accessibility:
   [10]http://www.a11ymetadata.org/the-specification/

     [10] http://www.a11ymetadata.org/the-specification/

   n: more fundamental q, from spec perspective, is it necessary
   to provide capibility for nonimage representation of text as
   opposed to multiple docs in a wider system
   ... restating .. we have no option for including text
   representation for images, as things stand
   ... at the moment no way to do that
   ... current alternative is an entirely other document

   jf: noting there are also reg issues in some countries
   ... reality is that as long as both are provided, there's no
   req that it's all in one doc
   ... don't say a must, or even a should here ... if tech for
   achieving the alt is worked out, still a may

   JS: we would like to see a programmatic association.

   JF: we should think about this as just another language file

   jf: the lang analogy is the correct way to thing about this

   p: notes there are practices in industry on this

   jf: problem is more authoring and best practices

   JS: I don't think regulators will be worried about how its
   done, just that its done.

   jf: also mindful of reg reqs

   js: but regulators won't care how the coverage is achieved,
   just that it is

   n: not convinced that metadata does exist
   ... hearing that it isn't a req that the spec provide alt for
   the caption images, that alternative doc is ok
   ... think our q is answered ...
   ... not sure the mechanics exist in mse

   p: they do

   n: fantastic

   jf: would be good to have a best practices doc showing how to
   do these things

   n: thinking about the lang analogy ...
   ... if it's visual only because gliphs are missing, then a text
   equiv isn't exactly an equiv

   p: you provide descriptive text ... "ringing telephone"

   jf: heard more descriptive gliphs, not charset gliphs

   p: there's both

   n: xml lang not sufficient ...

   p: but there are ways, in html5, for instance

Edits to Media Accessibility User Requirements

   ms: we believe we're now caught up

   <MarkS> [11]https://github.com/w3c/pfwg/commits/master

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/pfwg/commits/master

   <MarkS>
   [12]https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/MAUR_Comment_Processing
   #DRAFT_Comment_Responses

     [12]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/MAUR_Comment_Processing#DRAFT_Comment_Responses

   sm: update on 390 and 391 ...-- actually only 390

   <MarkS>
   [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2011OctDec/0
   019.html

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2011OctDec/0019.html

   sm: basically, content is too complicated, doc written for
   people with advanced degrees
   ... our target doc is not ordinary end users

   JS: I think we made it clear to EO that we want clear, specific
   change requests
   ...we have asked for feedback from them on Section 2,
   describing people, not the technology
   ...known all along that is a sensitive area of the document and
   we want to get the language right there.
   ...they will look at this heartbeat to address that
   ...I found a couple of edits, like ref to UA instead of User
   Agent
   ...some of the technical engineering language might be
   considered as such, but its appropriate for the audience

   jf: Feel shar's comments are ok, but this wasn't expected to be
   a "good read," it's a technical document
   ... if eo feels the need for a more readable document, this is
   not that document

   JS: they have done some good work on such writing in the past.
   let them do that

   [general greement on the response -- this is not the
   marketing/explanatory end user doc, it's a tech doc]

   ms: I worked on the low vis comments, and think I've tweked
   what is reasonable to tweak
   ... I tried to avoid repetition. most of the use cases raised
   could be addresed in transcripts alone.

   <MarkS>
   [14]https://w3c.github.io/pfwg/media-accessibility-reqs/#transc
   ripts

     [14] https://w3c.github.io/pfwg/media-accessibility-reqs/#transcripts

   <Zakim> McCarron, you wanted to ask for a clarification on t-3

   sm: q in t-3 ... comma after letter, or not?

   ms: struggled over that!

   <scribe> ACTION: jf to revisit whether to require transcripts
   be html5 [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2014/07/14-html-a11y-media-minutes.html#a
   ction01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-276 - Revisit whether to require
   transcripts be html5 [on John Foliot - due 2014-07-21].

   JS: some would like to sign off on this heartbeat
   ...there is some sense that because it is a PF publication, it
   should be approved by PF.
   ...happy to do that with a CC to the HTML TF list
   ...that would expire end of day on wednesday
   ...Mark could publish on Thursday

   [group agreement for 48-hour consensus in pf, with cc to tf]

   agreement to publish thursday, pending the pf CfC

Media Accessibility User Requirements Comment Responses

   ms: ah, we're done!

   <MarkS>
   [16]https://w3c.github.io/pfwg/media-accessibility-reqs/

     [16] https://w3c.github.io/pfwg/media-accessibility-reqs/

   <Zakim> kaz_, you wanted to ask janina_ and MarkS if it's OK to
   talk about TV related topics a bit at the end of this call

   <kaz_> [17]tv minutes

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2014/07/09-webtv-minutes.html#item02

   KAZ: TV Group is reviewing regenerated use cases, we started
   with non-accessibility UCs. Web and TV IG is interested in a
   F2F at TPAC this fall

   JS: I think we can arrange that. We should look at schedules
   and who we would like in those meetings.
   ...this will take some coordination

   KAZ: TV is meeting on Monday, but we can make some arrangement

   <MarkS> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: jf to revisit whether to require transcripts be
   html5 [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2014/07/14-html-a11y-media-minutes.html#a
   ction01]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([20]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-07-14 22:37:39 $

     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 22:40:34 UTC