See also: IRC log
<Judy> agenda item 1 was action item check : requirements gathering, not done
<Judy> agenda item 2 was process:
Janina: the only open action item is for John to create the requirements.
Janina: elephant in the room was process problem; we lost a participant; please bear in mind that we need to be able to listen to each other, not cut off, etc.
Janina: we're still waiting on John for providing
the requirements
... he is facing an unexpected work load at the moment
Judy: just sent email. was concerned we didn't
have a unified set of requirements for accessibility of media in HTML5.
... I briefly characterized each of the links providing by John last week
... [Judy is covering materials in email]
... if anyone is aware of additional resources for requirements, please add it
to the thread
... and then either John or someone will have time to compile them
... I also wanted to give an indication of gaps that I'm seeing or hearing
about
... I want to make sure we're documenting requirements for folks with mutiple
disabilities.
... are we capturing requirements for people with cognitive disabilities?
... documenting requirements for video description
... requirements for structured navigation
... those are concerns that I have
Janina: how to proceed from disabilities and then to the kind of accommodations or the reverse?
Judy: I'm suggesting to collect the requirements first
Janina: who is willing to help gather requirements? I'm willing to help on structural nav. Maybe Kenny can help as well on that.
Mark: some papers from the late 90s, specifically WWW2002 conf, could help. could send pointers.
Sean: while we're busy making requirements, they're busy putting text into the spec right now. should we slow them down a bit?
Janina: don't know what to say about someone
moving forward adding features knowing we're working on this. it shouldn't
impact the fact that we need to do the job properly
... if they guess right, fine, otherwise they'll have to redo the work.
Kenny: sharing Sean concerns, the proposal of
using the track element is already there in the spec.
... the video and audio elements now have examples with the track element
... along with SRT
Janina: those are solutions that we may end up
adopting, but need to focus on the requirements
... who can take on descriptive video?
Sean: I'd be happy to volunteer for some of that
<scribe> ACTION: Sean to look into descriptive video requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-29 - Look into descriptive video requirements [on Sean Hayes - due 2010-05-12].
<scribe> ACTION: Janina to look into structural navigation requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Look into structural navigation requirements [on Janina Sajka - due 2010-05-12].
Kenny: I'll be happy to help on structural nav requirements as well
Janina: captioning, who can do that? Goeff isn't around at the moment
Judy: I'm interested in getting the disability requirements around captions
<Judy> ACTION: jb follow up w/ Geoff on comprehensiveness of captioning requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-html-a11y-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Follow up w/ Geoff on comprehensiveness of captioning requirements [on Judy Brewer - due 2010-05-12].
<Judy> ACTION: jb follow up w/ Gunnar Hellstrom on comprehensiveness of secondary signed channel requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-html-a11y-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Follow up w/ Gunnar Hellstrom on comprehensiveness of secondary signed channel requirements [on Judy Brewer - due 2010-05-12].
Janina: what else in terms of requirements gathering? thank you Jim for sending requirements in btw
--> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010May/0024.html UAAG 2.0 guidelines for video
Sean: what about clear audio used in the UK? isolating audio from the audio background
Michael: re concurrent editing of the HTML spec. that's not our problem but we need to set a date at which we will provide a proposal to the WG and then editing will be expected.
Frank: My concern is that the spec has WebSRT *and* the concepts of cues; there has not been enough discussion of this
Janina: should we communicate worries to the HTML WG here?
Frank: yes, we all know that once language into the spec, it has a tendency to stay
Janina: I'd like to advance our discussion on
requirements further
... the whole point is not to drag the process but move it to a conclusion
Judy: wanted to respond to Sean re clear audio.
that's the kind of things we want to capture.
... there are similar types of provisions
... can we fix the spelling mistake in the wiki?
Allan: we need keyboard controls, that are native to the browser. we would want to avoid thousands of interfaces out there
plh:we should allow th page author to write their own keyboard controls
Allan: user override is nice but the default controls should be there.
Janina: API for controls?
Allan: possibly yes.
Janina: play, pause, caption on, etc.
plh: video producing companies want to have full control of their user epxerience, so you will see lots of video interfaces out there, developed using scripting, bound to keys, etc. You should allow the web author to write their own control
Eric: the best we can do is to ensure that everything that the browsers can do is also possibly through javascript
Janina: so that the assistive technology can use those
Allan: the user still needs to be able to control
the video. whatever the author do should be mapped to the browser functions.
... if I don't use a screenreader, simply using my keyboard, I should still be
able to use well-known keys
Janina: we have to be careful in defining not to enter in system specific
Allan: some basics are possible, like using tab to go through the controls
Sean: we need to add transcripts
<JF> re: Janina's point - it should be mappable to *a* key - unspecified. It is common today to see laptops and 3rd party keyboards, etc. that have dedicated volume keys
Sean: need some kind of labeling to them.
... separate from captioning
Janina: and the transcript may or may not be in sync with the audio
Sean: they key is to have something labeled as a transcript, and not captions
Janina: where should we add this?
[Silvia and John join the call]
Silvia: re keyboard controls. firefox has implemented keyboard controls. you can change volume, seek, etc.
Judy: let's focus in requirements first
Janina: from those present today, we would want
to support controls in HTML5 user agent
... we didn't go beyond that
... we're gathering requirements together
<AllanJ> +1 to controls and as rich a set as conceivable, author can always turn off function if it is not needed
John: I'll manage the wiki but people should try to add stuff there themselves
Judy: looking for a home for the requirements in the wiki....
Janina: I'm proposing to start a new page.
Judy: works for me.
... can John make progress on the framework?
<silvia> +1 to new page
John: I could work on that this evening
... I'll get the page started
Frank: I'll work on requirements on scripts
firing events and the concept of cues
... making interactive, etc.
Janina: it's not necessarily captions
Frank: agreed but we need some way from the
caption to see that something happened
... I'll look into architectural requirements
Janina: we wanted to start by the user requirements first
Judy: we might as well capture architectural requirements at the time
<scribe> ACTION: Sean to write transcript requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-html-a11y-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Write transcript requirements [on Sean Hayes - due 2010-05-12].
<scribe> ACTION: Frank to write cues requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-html-a11y-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Write cues requirements [on Frank Olivier - due 2010-05-12].
Janina: any other volunteer for architectural or user requirements?
[none heard]
Janina: next step: concerns from Frank
Frank: we're talking in this meeting about doing
requirements and technical investigation. in /// things get added to the spec,
increasing our challenge
... we should have consensus about what we add to the spec and there is no
consensus at this point
Judy: suggest to take the action item to come up with date for our input and to answer that, with a request to clarify the process going on here
Janina: I was asked where this group was and I asserted that we would have requirements by late may
Silvia: I can well understand the concern with
the spec
... trying to involve in that process and gives feedback as much as
possible
... Ian has put together requirements
... those may not be complete
... we need to verify Ian's way of thinking'
... as long as it's just text in the spec, anything can change
... harder after implementations
... let's not stop progress. let's recommend that the browser vendors don't
implement anything yet until we're done with our requirements
Frank: it's interesting proposal but it seems that inappropriate to have text in the spec and says not to pay attention. also it's not a placeholder but it's a fairly detailed spec
Silvia: for a browser vendor to implement this,
he filled in plenty of details
... but obviously we need to look at it
... it wouldn't be a problem to recommend to hold back on the
implementation
Judy: when there is text in the spec, it does
indeed get implemented. ideas are welcome outside of the spec text. the text
says that video accessible is holding up last call
... the TF has an action from the HTML WG to offer a date for input
<silvia> +1 to Judy
Judy: we should combine our date with a request
not to put text in the spec at the moment
... to avoid confusing the dialog
<frankolivier> +1 Judy; the spec should not contain text that does not have the concensus of the relevant group
Sean: also the text has some ressemblance with our requirements, we're not done with those and it's premature to add this spec.
Silvia: re premature to have a proposal in the
spec. for a lot of the things that needs to be developed, I don't think we have
all the background and knowledge in this group.
... it's not bad thing that it progressed into a larger group
... it's necessary to revalidate what we have
... we should make the best of it in a constructive way
John: I disagree. things in the editors draft get
entrenched
... it seems antagonistic to me
Frank: I also disagree. we have representatives
from Mozilla, webkit/safari, and IE here
... so not sure what technical expertise you're referring to
Janina: is there an objection to convey concerns about text going in the spec in advance of this group sending the requirements
Judy: I support to convey concerns from this
group about the next text addition in the spec.
... let's recheck our requirements before starting to compare them to a
technical proposal
Janina: is there anyone else opposing except Silvia?
Silvia: I'd like to see the exact wording
... I do have an issue with stopping progress
<scribe> ACTION: Janina to draft the message re date and text to send to HTML WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-html-a11y-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Draft the message re date and text to send to HTML WG [on Janina Sajka - due 2010-05-12].
Janina: I'll report concerns on the call tomorrow
[adjourned]