W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

RE: Issue-9 (video-accessibility): Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:59:18 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Matt May'" <mattmay@adobe.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006e01cabafb$3d5a0db0$b80e2910$@edu>
Matt May wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Discussion has died down
> I wouldn't say it's died down at all. It's just moved to public-html-
> a11y. Until the summary discussion bubbled up over the last 2 weeks, it
> was the #1 topic, and the group was making progress.

Agreed. Some concrete progress is being made, and 2 work efforts that can
be reviewed are at:

* Media TextAssociations:
* Media MultitrackAPI:

Some discussion has ensued around these documents, although the final
status remains fairly fluid.  Michael(tm) Smith has prepared interim
surveys on these proposals very late yesterday (I received my email @
22:30 Pacific Time), and some discussion has resurfaced around those
postings. Generally the MultitrackAPI is being well received; the Media
TextAssociations discussions are currently focused on supporting
time-stamp formats: there will need to be continued discussion here, but
the *trend* seems to be favoring .SRT files for legacy/backwards usage,
and a move towards a profiled approach to DFXP; the concern is that DFXP
is likely too "large" to support out of the box, so a stripped down
version (or two) is likely the next step.  Work here is also very fluid,
with no identified timeline/deadline at this point.  I suspect we will
need to address that fairly quickly, and will seek to bring it up on
Thursday's a11y Task Force call.

> > If no Change Proposals are written by April 5, 2010 this issue will
> > be closed without prejudice.
> I don't see what purpose this serves. ISSUE-9 is one of the broadest in
> terms of the problem set and the work that remains to be done. From
> what I've seen of the discussion, each of the stakeholders has their
> own vision of how to proceed. Putting a deadline of one month (during
> which, BTW, many if not most accessibility people are preparing for and
> traveling to their largest conference of the year) to solve video
> accessibility is setting up the group for either a failure to meet the
> date, or a rushed proposal that may not fully address accessibility
> issues and doesn't have the support of the vendors who would implement
> the contents of the CP.

I have to agree with Matt here.  A significant number of people will be
attending CSUN in San Diego (March 24-27), with I suspect another largish
showing at SWSX (March 11 - 16: I know that Matt, Cynthia, Martin Kliehm,
myself and a few others will be there), and there is a planned
Face-to-Face meeting in the UK of the A11y Task Force April 6-7
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/ftf_2010-04), so while work can and will
continue in March, we should be realistic about people's ability to
actively focus on too many things at once, and not artificially force a
deadline on people.

Would it be helpful to the chairs if the A11y Task Force come back with
some proposed dates and times/timelines instead of the dart-board choice
of April 15th?


Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 17:59:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC