- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 18:24:20 +0000
- To: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5E0F6E8C-D5AC-4924-994A-95FEB7B3202F@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/03/17-tt-minutes.html
Please note that we made 2 Resolutions to which the group’s Decision Policy applies, giving 2 weeks for review:
RESOLUTION: Publish the Draft Note of DAPT requirements on /TR as a WG Note after issue #4 has been resolved
RESOLUTION: On merging pull requests to the main branch of the repo, trigger automatic publication of a WG Note as an update.
These both apply to the DAPT Requirements Note at https://w3c.github.io/dapt-reqs/ .
If you have any comments or objections on these resolutions please respond by 31st March; if there are no outstanding objections at the end of that period then they will be considered WG Decisions.
Those minutes in text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
17 March 2022
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2022/03/03-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/212
[4] https://www.w3.org/2022/03/17-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Nigel
Regrets
Pierre
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
1. [5]This meeting
2. [6]Rechartering
3. [7]TPAC
4. [8]IMSC HRM
5. [9]DAPT REQs
6. [10]Behavior with controls, particularly non-native
controls, overlap w3c/webvtt#503
7. [11]Meeting close
8. [12]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
This meeting
Atsushi: Can we cover the Charter and TPAC topics first?
Nigel: [iterates through meeting agenda]
… Any other business?
Rechartering
Atsushi: AC review for the Charter is open until next
Wednesday.
… All the AC reps for today's attendees have responded.
… But some TTWG participants' AC reps have not yet responded,
so I'm reminding them
… via the minutes.
Nigel: Noted, thank you.
… I think the situation re support and objections is the same
as last week for objections (1),
… and more support.
Atsushi: Yes
Gary: How does the formal objection affect chartering process?
Atsushi: On the part we wrote about implementation
requirements.
… There is one request to change for two independent
implementations.
Gary: Can we proceed with that or do we need to resolve the
objection before we can proceed?
Atsushi: We need to resolve the FO before we proceed. I believe
we have no response from the AC rep though.
Nigel: That's correct, no response yet.
… I will send a reminder.
… It is not clear _how_ we will resolve the objection!
Gary: Yes, that's the difficult part. From a process point of
view, it's easy!
TPAC
Atsushi: We really need to respond about the TPAC questions -
on-site/off-site/hybrid.
… It's a reminder for Chairs to respond to the WBS.
Nigel: Almost everyone has not responded to the email question
I sent out.
Gary: I'm probably not going to travel for it.
Nigel: OK I will extrapolate from me, Andreas and Gary and send
a response, albeit an inaccurate one!
… I think that will have to do.
… What's the response date?
Gary: March 28th
Andreas: Pierre had some comments last time, which can be taken
into account.
Nigel: I didn't know how to process his comments in terms of a
survey response.
Gary: He said it was too soon to decide, which is why I gave my
response.
Andreas: Yes, if I had to decide now I would say no.
Nigel: Nobody is being asked to decide now.
Cyril: In my case, I could travel. I went to a conference 2
weeks ago, it was good!
… It's a lot of ifs, but if there is an agenda, and nothing
changes, I would be able to go.
Nigel: That's my position as well.
… OK we have a mix, which I can use. Thanks everyone!
Atsushi: Not for me but for the Chairs to decide if we need an
offline venue and if so, how large.
… For me, I suppose it will be difficult to travel from Japan
even in September.
… So for now I should say regrets for on-site, but I could join
somehow remotely.
Nigel: OK, thank you.
… I think that's almost everybody.
… Gary, either of us can do this, do you have a preference?
Gary: I'm happy to take it on.
Nigel: Thank you!
IMSC HRM
Nigel: In Pierre's absence, quick update.
… We've merged most of the open pull requests.
… There's one more where Pierre and I have been going round the
loop on introductory text.
… Please take a look at [13]https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/
pull/43 otherwise
… I think we're nearly there so it may get merged very soon.
… There is one open HR issue which we tried to resolve, but was
reopened.
… I think that's a misunderstanding and am hoping that the
Privacy & Security reviewer who raised the issue
… will agree, after further thought.
… I think we should consider renaming the defined term "glyph"
which doesn't carry it's usual meaning,
… in the HRM. I think this is a cause of technical
misunderstandings that we can mitigate.
… Aside from all that, when we've merged all these PRs the plan
is as discussed for me to send Wide Review comms.
… If anyone has any suggestions for alternative names for
glyph, please let us know.
[13] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/43
Gary: Should we also add a note that the font does not need to
be loaded?
Nigel: Yes, I think PR #43 adds text that explicitly says that
no external resources need to be loaded.
Gary: Perfect.
Nigel: Any more on IMSC HRM?
[nothing more]
DAPT REQs
Nigel: As promised Cyril and I have completed a first ED of the
WG Note for the requirements for DAPT.
[14]Draft ED Note for DAPT REQs
[14] https://w3c.github.io/dapt-reqs/
Nigel: I was wondering if we could and should adopt the same
working mode as for IMSC-HRM where
… a PR merge to the default branch triggers publication on /TR
Cyril: Yes that'd be great
Gary: Ship it!
Nigel: Atsushi, can we do that?
Atsushi: I have not studied yet about publication rules for WG
Notes so let me check the document about draft note.
… DNOE. I believe it is easier than pubishing FPWD but I'm not
sure what we need.
Nigel: We can make a proposal and resolution.
Atsushi: I believe we do need that, but I need to check the
Process document for what to do next.
… In any case I propose to ask for consensus here.
Nigel: Yes, let's do 2 proposals.
PROPOSAL: Publish the Draft Note of DAPT requirements on /TR as
a WG Note
<atsushi> [15]DNOTE / draft note
[15] https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#draft-note
PROPOSAL: On merging pull requests to the main branch of the
repo, trigger automatic publication of a WG Note as an update.
Nigel: Any questions or comments on those proposals?
Andreas: The first proposal is to publish the draft as a WG
Note as it is now?
Nigel: Yes
Cyril: As an Editor's Draft?
Andreas: And the second one is for automatic republishing?
… I raised an issue about accessibility, which we should
consider before publication.
Nigel: I didn't see that yet.
Andreas: The image should have an accessible equivalent for
screen readers, and the table has some problems.
Cyril: The screen reader says the names of the layer and shape
when you hover over.
Nigel: That doesn't sound good - it may need an aria label.
Cyril: I didn't realise it is clickable.
Nigel: Yes it takes you to the spec text about it.
Cyril: Oh wow. We should add a note about that.
… We should open issues about the Editor's Note so we can
reference them. I can do that now?
Nigel: Yes please go ahead.
Cyril: We should address those but I don't see them as blockers
to publication.
Nigel: Andreas, I don't know why the table isn't accessible, I
just used standard Respec.
… If you can add more detail it would be helpful.
Andreas: Maybe you can try it and see if it says what you
expect. I don't know if an "X" is meaningful.
… It would be good to fix that before publication.
Nigel: Okay, Andreas, you would like to see this fixed before
publication.
Andreas: If we publish this and advertise it, I think it should
be fixed before.
Nigel: I will amend the proposal
PROPOSAL: Publish the Draft Note of DAPT requirements on /TR as
a WG Note after issue #4 has been resolved
Nigel: I think this amended proposal will not make any
difference to timelines because our 2 week decision review
policy
… should give enough time - oh actually, the pull request needs
its own 2 weeks, so maybe that's not quite right.
… Anyway, I agree we should resolve that.
Atsushi: We may be able to do these in parallel.
Nigel: Yes, we should. I may be able to open a pull request for
this tomorrow morning.
Atsushi: It's up to you.
Nigel: Okay, any more on the proposals?
… Any objections?
No objections
RESOLUTION: Publish the Draft Note of DAPT requirements on /TR
as a WG Note after issue #4 has been resolved
RESOLUTION: On merging pull requests to the main branch of the
repo, trigger automatic publication of a WG Note as an update.
Nigel: Thank you.
… Obviously please do raise issues as normal if you would like
any changes to the document.
… Thank you Andreas for raising those issues.
Cyril: What does it mean for writing a specification against
the requirements?
… Can we start working on an ED for a FPWD?
Nigel: Yes I don't see why not.
… We must also validate these requirements.
… Obviously any changes to the requirements might have impacts
on the specification.
Cyril: I will start working on an Editor's draft, which we can
finalise later.
Nigel: Great, thank you.
… I think I should write a Chair's blog post about the
requirements document to try to get as much review input as
possible.
… I've already shared it with some contacts, and would
encourage everyone else to as well.
Behavior with controls, particularly non-native controls, overlap
w3c/webvtt#503
Gary: I don't think we will completely cover this today but I
think that's fine. It's a big topic.
… Background: the question arises from when there are captions
at the bottom of the display area. What happens
… when the user interacts with the video player and the
controls are shown.
… The controls can obscure the captions, which can be
problematic from an accessibility standpoint,
… for those that depend on the captions.
github: [16]https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/503
[16] https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/503
Gary: WebVTT right now with native controls has a mechanism to
say that the captions should rerender to account for the native
… control bar.
… But then how do you handle this with a non-native control
bar?
… Also the behaviour potentially has bugs because it can cause
cues to reorder,
… which could be confusing to the user.
Nigel: The bug part needs to be fixed, because displaying lines
out of order can't be right.
Gary: I think it is to spec as written now.
… It's an issue if you have 2 cues, one for each line, instead
of a 2 line cue.
… If only the second line gets obscured but the first can be
positioned normally, then the second one gets moved and ends up
above the first one.
Nigel: That's 2 cues rather than 1 cue with a line break in it?
Gary: it's 2 cues with each line in a separate cue rather than
1 cue with a break in it.
Andreas: I second that this is an important issue.
… I encountered it with subtitles for audio only, and in some
browsers the control bar never disappears.
… Then the WebVTT cues can be permanently obscured by the
control bar.
… I did not investigate if that is spec conformant.
Gary: With an audio element?
Andreas: With a video element pointing to audio content.
Gary: Interesting that the controls are always visible.
Andreas: The question on the solution part is if it is for the
HTML spec or for the WebVTT spec?
Gary: I'd argue for both because there's the reordering
behaviour and also can you represent non-native controls
… so that the captions don't overlap - that may be for the HTML
spec.
Cyril: I don't know if this is true for all players, but some
of the Netflix players reduce the size of the viewport when
controls appear.
Gary: You shrink the text area?
Cyril: Yes, it temporarily squishes until the controls
disappear.
… This makes the text move.
Nigel: Some BBC players do the same thing as what Cyril said,
but...
… our newer UX design puts the controls in the vertical centre,
so that doesn't work any more!
… Some time ago I suggested an API for saying where not to put
captions.
… This is a real problem - it's not just controls, it can be
other overlays too.
<atsushi> +1 on issue ;)
SUMMARY: Issue discussed and recognised, applies to all caption
formats.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone. Next time we meet the UTC time will be
different, and the meeting will
… be at the usual local time for all regular participants
except Atsushi, for whom it will be 1 hour earlier.
Atsushi: I heard that the US will not have DST from next year.
Gary: Yes the Senate passed it but it still has to go through
the House and the President.
Nigel: OK, thank you. [adjourns meeting]
Summary of resolutions
1. [17]Publish the Draft Note of DAPT requirements on /TR as a
WG Note after issue #4 has been resolved
2. [18]On merging pull requests to the main branch of the
repo, trigger automatic publication of a WG Note as an
update.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[19]scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).
[19] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2022 18:24:38 UTC