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:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations
* Media MultitrackAPI:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/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?

Cheers!

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC