{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2020-03-12

Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2020/03/12-tt-minutes.html


Please note that we made one resolution:

Resolution: Publish IMSC1.2 CR on March 19th<https://www.w3.org/2020/03/12-tt-minutes.html#r01>

Since this resolution was the result of a Call for Consensus, and the decision review period since that call has elapsed, no further review period remains for this decision.

Some issues were raised against IMSC 1.2 during the CfC period. The TTWG agreed during today's meeting that any changes to the document made to resolve those issues will not affect conformance and can be addressed before requesting transition to Proposed Recommendation.

Those minutes in text format:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

12 March 2020

   [2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2020/03/05-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/100

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2020/03/12-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre

   Regrets
          Glenn

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          Cyril, cyril_, nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]IMSC 1.2
    3. [7]APA WG comment: Reference to WCAG 2.1 imsc#519
    4. [8]APA WG comment: Requested Additional WCAG 2.1 References
    5. [9]APA WG comment: Add note on alt text
    6. [10]APA WG comment: Add introduction
    7. [11]APA WG comment: Author proposes, user disposes
    8. [12]APA WG comment: semantic layers
    9. [13]CFC
   10. [14]AOB - #104
   11. [15]Meeting close
   12. [16]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   nigel: for today, we have a bunch of incoming comments from APA
   on IMSC. we need to iterate and see if we need a change before
   CR or not

   nigel: we have IMSC1.2 CR but not sure we need to discuss

   nigel: only one AOB item for the DST issue

  IMSC 1.2

   pal: I have an update to the IMSC test reel

   <atsushi> (will be here shortly - last call continuing)

   pal: I was hoping plh would be here and have progress on it

   nigel: we have issues 519 to 524 that concern accessibility

  APA WG comment: Reference to WCAG 2.1 imsc#519

   <nigel> github: [17]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/519


     [17] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/519


   nigel: they are suggesting that we do a change about WCAG
   … change 'recommends' to 'requires'
   … D.1 does not say it's not normative
   … so that would be a normative change
   … we have to do that before publishing CR?

   pal: that's news to me because WCAG are guidelines and do not
   use MUST or SHALL
   … it was not clear to me that they were requirements

   nigel: they're called guidelines, they have success criteria

   gkatsev: WCAG has a conformance section

   pal: my recommendation would be to remove the word 'recommends'
   and replace it with 'specifies' so that the WCAG document
   speaks for itself, instead of us trying to interpret it

   nigel: the text currently says 'recommends that an
   implementation provide'
   … it's not very clear if it's the implementation or the content
   provider

   pal: in general, my preference would be to paraphrase as little
   as possible and point to WCAG

   nigel: I agree it feels uncomfortable to try to interpret
   another recommendation
   … I would make an adjustment to pal's proposal
   … "specifies provision of"

   pal: I can take a pass at it and propose text

   nigel: it's further down as well
   … in paragraphs 5 and 6

   nigel: in terms of CR, this is a change to normative text
   … I would be more comfortable delaying that by a couple of
   weeks
   … it's likely to have less of an impact now that if we do it
   later

   pal: the question in my mind is: is that going to change
   anythign

   nigel: as in what?

   pal: I don't think it changes any conformance to IMSC

   nigel: it does not look like we have conformance language
   associated with it but it is in a normative section

   pal: on the basis of that one, that's not a change of
   requirements
   … the risk is not very high

   nigel: for this specific issue, we should have an editorial
   pass

   SUMMARY: Discussed in today's call and agreed to do an
   editorial pass to adjust the text so that it no longer
   interpret WCAG guidelines as recommendations

  APA WG comment: Requested Additional WCAG 2.1 References

   github: [18]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/520


     [18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/520


   nigel: this is going to require some work
   … that would go in section D.1
   … they all make sense

   pal: at some point it becomes easier to point to the WCAG spec
   instead of pointing to each of them

   nigel: the helpful thing here would be to describe the relevant
   part of an IMSC document that might be used to achieve these
   guidelines
   … for example, for contrast in a text profile we can point to
   how to do it
   … 1.4.3 minimum contrast could point to color and background
   color
   … we could also point to xml:lang
   … the useful thing is not to re-express the guidelines but
   indicate the tools to do that

   pal: that makes sense
   … we can give it a try

   cyril: now or in a new edition?

   nigel: that will not affect any processor or conformance, it's
   a usage guideline
   … a document author should be aware of how to use
   color/backgroundColor to meet these guidelines
   … this is in the same category as the previous issue #519

   cyril_: how will we consider done?

   nigel: we create a PR and ask them to review

   SUMMARY: Discussed in today's meeting and agreed to do an
   editorial pass to list those additional success criteria and
   how to address them in the context of IMSC

  APA WG comment: Add note on alt text

   github: [19]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/521


     [19] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/521


   pal: the text that is being suggested might already be in 5.1
   … I can take an action item to determine if the text is already
   present and if not, add it to the annex D

   nigel: they wanted to specifically put it in the altText
   section

   pal: we should not put where the syntax is defined but I'm
   happy to go through the document to make sure the concept is in

   pal: that note is actually best handled in annex D when we
   describe how to meet the criteria

   nigel: makes sense

   SUMMARY: Discussed in call today. The editor will consider the
   best location to incorporate this advice for document authors

  APA WG comment: Add introduction

   github: [20]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/522


     [20] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/522


   pal: before taking any action, I'd like to know if they've
   considered the text in 5.1

   cyril_: maybe the fact that it's in 5.1 and not early

   pal: exactly, happy to move some of it to an introduction if it
   suits them

   SUMMARY: Discussed today. Pierre to ask follow-up question on
   this issue.

  APA WG comment: Author proposes, user disposes

   github: [21]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/523


     [21] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/523


   nigel: we have MAUR in D.2
   … this particular issue recommends adding a note to the spec

   pal: I can see what it means but the wording does not seem
   useful
   … as a general idea, saying that the final rendering depends on
   user settings, local regulation ...
   … we could say that, if don't say it already somewhere

   nigel: I do have a bit of a fundamental problem
   … authors specifying layout is not an issue
   … it's a positive point
   … the authors know what's in the video when the subs will be
   presented
   … I get that sometimes people want to override that

   gkatsev: I agree with you Nigel but on the other hand, it would
   be useful for author that it's going to happen
   … for example for the CVAA in the US and the font-size change
   … the captions can become too big and missing

   pal: we've had this discussion many times before
   … there are different regulations in different places
   … I don't think we can summarize it in one sentenc
   … I don't know how to make a sentence that is productive
   … just saying it might not be rendered as the author intended
   is not sufficient

   nigel: we don't provide in IMSC any tools that the author can
   sensibly take advantage of
   … the closest is overflow and wrap option
   … but even then, they are not that useful
   … we could say don't make region as tight as possible
   … there are techniques that you can put for specific cases
   … the second point is that this note is more targeted to
   implementers of processors rather than authors
   … we might want to get back to them to ask if they meant
   authors
   … because this specification says in the absence of anything
   else this is how to render
   … but in practice implementers have to take other things into
   account

   pal: we could reference issue #316
   … the resolution was to add the reference to MAUR
   … my proposed disposition would be in the MAUR section to add a
   note along the lines of what you just mentioned

   cyril: What about adding an example?
   … We could say there are plenty of ways for authors to take
   into account and give
   … the example like what Nigel said not to make the region too
   tight so the text does
   … not get clipped.

   pal: in section D.2
   … we have one sentencee
   … we could expand on that

   gkatsev: I think maybe it's enough to say that authors should
   specify styling and positioning and that due to MAUR it may be
   overriden

   pal: I like that, we could say the document specifies a nominal
   rendering
   … I want to avoid saying 'authors'

   gkatsev: the sticking point is that users can modify the
   rendering (not the accessibility requirements)

   nigel: the formal term we can make use of here is the "document
   processing context"
   … users may influence the document processing context to modify
   the actual presentation in order to meet the MAUR guidelines

   SUMMARY: Discussed and editor to add text to D.2 to express
   this concept

  APA WG comment: semantic layers

   github: [22]https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/524


     [22] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/524


   nigel: TTML and IMSC permit metadata description to be
   specified on particular bit of information
   … there is no formal requirement to do anything on that
   … the facility to have layers exist already
  … by using e.g. ttm:role
   … but there is no normative requirement on processor to use it
   … so force content provides a clear mechanism for authors and
   processors to define a interoperable presentation behavior

   pal: "Forced" is a very specific tool for a very specific use
   case
   … the broader question is how to indicate the semantics of
   timed text
   … how to get the consistency across the ecosystem but that's
   beyond the scope of IMSC

   SUMMARY: this is a really interesting topic, but we don't think
   we can make any useful change to IMSC in response to this
   comment

   SUMMARY: TTWG suggests this should be the beginning of a
   conversion with APA and other interested parties

  CFC

   nigel: there were no objections
   … the editorial passes that we agreed to do, do not affect the
   normative parts
   … my proposal would be to say that the CFC is approved for CR
   publication
   … and we'll address the APA issues during CR phase

   cyril_: +1

   pal: good

   nigel: it seems there is no objection from the group

   Resolution: Publish IMSC1.2 CR on March 19th

   Nigel: I think that gives Atsushi what he needs and the action
   moves to Pierre and Atsushi
   … to get the materials ready for publication. Thanks everyone
   for that.

  AOB - #104

   Nigel: [short of time] Can we take this offline or defer until
   next week?

   Atsushi: Yes, if someone who can open ics files could check the
   file in the pull request
   … please that would be very helpful?

   Nigel: I will try to do that. Others welcome to also.

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thank you everyone, and thank you Cyril for scribing. I
   found that really interesting.
   … We're out of time so I'll adjourn now, see you next week.
   [adjourns meeting]

Summary of resolutions

    1. [23]Publish IMSC1.2 CR on March 19th


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [24]scribe.perl version 113 (Sat Mar 7 01:13:06 2020 UTC).

     [24] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html