22:01:53 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
22:01:53 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/08/25-html-a11y-irc
22:01:58 zakim, this will be WAI_PFWG(A11Y)
22:01:58 ok, janina, I see WAI_PFWG(A11Y)6:00PM already started
22:02:03 zakim, call janina
22:02:03 ok, janina; the call is being made
22:02:04 +Janina
22:03:05 Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
22:03:05 Chair: John_Foliot
22:03:05 agenda: this
22:03:05 agenda+ Identify Scribe
22:03:05 agenda+ Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
22:03:06 agenda+ User Requirements: Revised Title, Intro & Sec. 2.5; Next Steps
22:03:08 agenda+ Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM
22:03:10 agenda+ Synchronizing Asynchronous Alternative Media Resources Followup
22:03:12 agenda CandidateGap Analysis: WebSRT; WMML, Controls, TTML, SMIL3, Etc.
22:03:14 agenda+ next meetings, confirm date/time, choose scribe
22:03:16 agenda+ be done
22:03:18
22:04:02 zakim, who's here?
22:04:02 On the phone I see Eric_Carlson, +44.154.558.aaaa, Janina
22:04:03 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, silvia, janina, eric, MikeSmith, trackbot
22:04:30 zakim, +44.154.558.aaaa is Sean_Hayes
22:04:30 +Sean_Hayes; got it
22:05:41 Judy has joined #html-a11y
22:05:47 zakim, code?
22:05:47 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Judy
22:05:54 +silvia
22:06:04 +Judy
22:07:58 agenda: this
22:07:59 agenda+ Identify Scribe
22:07:59 agenda+ Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
22:07:59 agenda+ User Requirements: Revised Title, Intro & Sec. 2.5; Next Steps
22:07:59 agenda+ Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM
22:07:59 agenda+ Synchronizing Asynchronous Alternative Media Resources Followup
22:08:00 scribe: silvia
22:08:01 agenda CandidateGap Analysis: WebSRT; WMML, Controls, TTML, SMIL3, Etc.
22:08:03 agenda+ next meetings, confirm date/time, choose scribe
22:08:05 agenda+ be done
22:09:42 zakim, drop items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
22:09:42 I don't understand 'drop items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14', Judy
22:09:46 zakim: take up item 1
22:09:50 zakim, drop item 8
22:09:50 agendum 8, Identify Scribe, dropped
22:10:01 zakim, drop item 9
22:10:01 agendum 9, Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open, dropped
22:10:07 zakim, drop item 10
22:10:07 agendum 10, User Requirements: Revised Title, Intro & Sec. 2.5; Next Steps, dropped
22:10:11 zakim, drop item 11
22:10:11 agendum 11, Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM, dropped
22:10:14 zakim, drop item 12
22:10:14 agendum 12, Synchronizing Asynchronous Alternative Media Resources Followup, dropped
22:10:14 So, we already have a scribe and can move on.
22:10:25 zakim, next item
22:10:25 agendum 1. "Identify Scribe" taken up [from janina]
22:10:29 zakim, drop item 13
22:10:29 agendum 13, next meetings, confirm date/time, choose scribe, dropped
22:10:31 zakim, drop item 14
22:10:31 agendum 14, be done, dropped
22:10:38 zakim, next item
22:10:38 agendum 1 was just opened, silvia
22:10:46 zakim, close item 1
22:10:46 agendum 1, Identify Scribe, closed
22:10:47 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:10:49 2. Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open [from janina]
22:10:52 agenda?
22:11:49 Open items:
22:12:08 action-52
22:12:25 JF on priority list -> still pending
22:12:54 action 53: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/53 <- today
22:12:54 Sorry, couldn't find user - 53
22:13:26 re: action 54: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/54 <- today
22:13:37 zakim, next item
22:13:37 agendum 2. "Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open" taken up [from janina]
22:14:02 zakim, next item
22:14:02 agendum 2 was just opened, silvia
22:14:09 zakim, close item 2
22:14:09 agendum 2, Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open, closed
22:14:11 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:14:13 3. User Requirements: Revised Title, Intro & Sec. 2.5; Next Steps [from janina]
22:14:21 mkobayas has joined #html-a11y
22:14:22 zakim, take up next item
22:14:22 agendum 3. "User Requirements: Revised Title, Intro & Sec. 2.5; Next Steps" taken up [from janina]
22:14:37 janina: status update
22:15:01 … Michael and Silvia helped get Janina's and Judy's edits into the file
22:15:03 zakim, who's here?
22:15:03 On the phone I see Eric_Carlson, Sean_Hayes, Janina, silvia, Judy
22:15:04 On IRC I see mkobayas, Judy, RRSAgent, Zakim, silvia, janina, Eric_Carlson, MikeSmith, trackbot
22:15:18 … into the requirements document
22:15:30 … a couple of things to highlight, that the group should look at and approve
22:16:21 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements
22:17:10 … at the very top, I added a couple of paragraphs to explain better what this document is about
22:17:13 +1 on the title change
22:17:29 … I changed the title to "Media Accessibility User Requirements"
22:17:41 … trying to emphasize that these are user and not user agent requirements
22:17:52 … the introduction got a work-over, too
22:18:01 eric: I think those are both very necessary changes
22:18:23 +1 from me on both
22:18:47 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Content_Navigation_by_Content_Structure
22:19:22 janina: we hadn't define granularity level and anxilliary content in the content navigation section
22:19:31 … so I have added this
22:20:42 eric: I think that's a nice explanation of it
22:22:22 janina: I wanted to make sure it's understood that the navigation interrupts the sequential viewing of the content
22:23:21 … we need a way to get to them, to learn about them, and to get back to them later
22:23:50 eric: looks good
22:24:10 silvia: I think it's a fairly big introduction compared to other sections, but it's probably one of the least understood areas, so it's good to explain this properly
22:24:15 q+
22:24:52 judy: I wanted to make a comment about the disability categorisation, which is section 1
22:25:19 … I wanted to make some changes to the learning disabilities description
22:25:52 http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities
22:26:04 … I want to arrange it to be more in line with this document
22:26:27 … I am proposing update the learning disabilities description by midnight tonight
22:26:39 … but there will be continuing improvements to the doc
22:26:50 janina: should we declare it at the top as a living document?
22:27:55 judy: I want to particularly continually improve section 1 of this
22:29:11 -silvia
22:29:31 silvia: I am happy for judy's edits to go in - and also to have it as a continuously evolving document as we come across more changes
22:30:33 +silvia
22:31:36 janina: I was trying to do a top-to-bottom read and I have a couple of small things, but one big thing
22:32:10 … we use "audio description" for described audio
22:32:38 … the preferred way today is "video description", since it can come in all sorts of content types, e.g. text or audio
22:32:52 judy: I wouldn't want this to hold it back
22:33:15 described video
22:33:18 [janina is saying "described video"]
22:33:49 … "described video" is the correct term now
22:33:55 silvia: happy to make the change
22:34:45 judy: if there are other simple edits, please let me know and I can make the changes by tonight
22:35:00 janina: this is I think my list before we can go towards group consensus
22:35:32 judy: proposal to approve as a finalized document of the group with the changes just discussed
22:36:07 resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger group
22:36:31 … as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
22:36:47 s/group/W3C community/
22:36:56 janina: any objections?
22:38:11 corrected resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
22:39:05 Resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
22:39:32 resolved: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
22:39:46 scribenic?
22:39:51 scribe: silvia
22:40:03 Resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
22:40:26 +1
22:40:29 +1
22:40:40 +1
22:40:49 zakim, who's here?
22:40:49 On the phone I see Eric_Carlson, Sean_Hayes, Janina, Judy, silvia
22:40:50 On IRC I see mkobayas, Judy, RRSAgent, Zakim, silvia, janina, Eric_Carlson, MikeSmith, trackbot
22:41:04 +1
22:41:22 and +1 from Sean
22:41:30 zakim, take up next item
22:41:30 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Judy
22:41:34 q?
22:41:37 q-
22:41:41 zakim, take up next item
22:41:41 agendum 4. "Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM" taken up [from janina]
22:42:07 janina: we are looking for a place to host NCAM's examples to make them available to the larger group
22:42:32 … I know, Eric re-cast one of the demos
22:44:25 plh has joined #html-a11y
22:44:40 silvia: can we have the compositing assets from both examples
22:44:41 +Plh
22:44:51 … if you could ask Geoff for that, janina, that would be helpful
22:45:20 eric: in particular the second one which is RealMedia would be nice to get as separate assets, because otherwise I cannot even look at it
22:45:22 zakim, take up next item
22:45:22 agendum 5. "Synchronizing Asynchronous Alternative Media Resources Followup" taken up [from janina]
22:47:50 nothing to discuss before we get John's summary document
22:48:01 zakim, take up next item
22:48:01 agendum 6. "next meetings, confirm date/time, choose scribe" taken up [from janina]
22:48:57 agenda?
22:49:14 judy: we should see if we can get proponents to introduce their respective specs
22:49:37 agenda+ resume discussion of silvia's presentation
22:49:52 agenda+ plan presentations on other remaining technical approaches
22:50:10 zakim, agenda order is 15, 16, 6, 7
22:50:10 ok, Judy
22:50:19 zakim, next item
22:50:19 agendum 15. "resume discussion of silvia's presentation" taken up [from Judy]
22:50:33 janina: this is to resume from the discussion last week
22:50:47 … some discussion happened on list
22:51:54 eric: we discussed whether an audio element should have a display of captions, since it doesn't have a visual presentation
22:54:03 judy: I thought we would look at Johns spreadsheet next week and have a quick look through other formats before we invite Ian to introduce WebSRT
22:55:16 janina: I'm curious to look at the formats now
22:55:33 … we have four candidates: TTML, SMIL3, WMML, and WebSRT
22:55:51 sean: are you talking about SMIL as a whole or just SMIL Text?
22:56:06 judy: just the restricted format
22:56:48 sean: SMIL has a text format called SMILText which can be used within SMIL and is like a captioning format
22:56:57 … it's a simple but different version to TTML
22:57:14 judy: can you present on that? 15-20 min is what I am thinking abou
22:57:21 sean: yes
22:57:48 silvia: today or next week?
22:58:21 judy: I am thinking of getting these presentations next week and the week after
22:58:27 sean: what is the purpose of these presentations?
22:58:55 janina: as a run through existing formats to see what they can offer to facilitate meeting the user requirements
22:59:52 … we need to identify to advantages and disadvantages of all the technologies, potentially even merge different capabilities of one into the other
23:00:07 eric: I wonder whether it really makes sense for us to recommend one format over another
23:00:30 sean: even if we come up with a representation, where will that go
23:00:46 … we can educate this group, but a recommendation is not up to us to make
23:01:12 eric: I agree and it would be a significant investment of our time to go through them all and understand them
23:02:08 sean: we could all educate ourselves outside this group, since a phone conference will not give us an in-depth understanding
23:02:42 judy: if we cannot recommend a format, we can at least give requirements matching information on the formats
23:03:41 … we do want to provide some input into the process of choosing a format
23:03:44 q+
23:03:55 sean: I think this group should stay around to mediate the discussion in the wider group
23:04:04 … what I don't want to see happen is that this group provides a proposal
23:04:20 +1
23:04:26 ack plh
23:05:30 plh: I understand why some people in this group do not want to recommend a format
23:06:18 [so with video codec, it will be implementation-independent because no agreement in the larger group]
23:06:59 … we now have the opportunity to make a recommendation on a baseline captioning format
23:06:59 s/implementation-independent/implementation-dependent/
23:08:52 janina: I don't think we will have the discussions together with the W3C HTML WG and we won't be shy to introduce our opinions and ideas
23:09:04 sean: I don't want to have the argument twice
23:09:17 s/don't//
23:09:44 (sorry: that was on the use of don't in janina's sentence)
23:10:16 judy: I am listening to Philippe's comments carefully because he has his eye on the overall process
23:10:52 … if we can get to some statement of guidance, because the larger WG doesn't quite have our insights yet
23:11:11 … so if we can get closer to a recommendation, that would probably be good
23:11:44 … maybe one way to do this would be to do the presentations that we were talking about, but to have a realistic set of expectations to surface some key questions
23:12:12 … something that we can capture against the requirements
23:12:24 … or do people have a proposal for a better way to proceed
23:12:37 … in order to capture better what we have done?
23:12:54 … so, Silvia presented on some parts before - was that useful?
23:15:04 eric: Silvia's presentation was useful, but we will not be able to get to the level of detail here that is really required to make a decision
23:15:23 silvia: we need to get closer to people being able to make up their minds
23:15:42 philippe: i don't have more suggestions at this time
23:15:48 silvia: I think it may be useful to educate the people in this group further and such for individuals to get closer to making up their mind, because it will be useful for the later discussion in the W3C HTML WG
23:15:57 … but I don't think we should recommend a format as a group
23:16:34 janina: we should be able to solve all our text-related requirements with one text format, right?
23:17:34 eric: I would go so far to say that a format the doesn't support all these needs isn't adequate
23:18:47 judy: it would be useful to also make such a statement as a group on the text-related format
23:19:19 janina: we have been told "you cannot even give us a captioning format"
23:20:03 judy: how the format options lign up again requirements is important for us to express
23:20:20 … so that formats can be evaluated objectively and openly
23:20:49 eric: that discussion will happen on the mailing list when the HTML WG will talk about a caption format and our user requirements will be a part of this discussion
23:21:14 judy: we have to lead how the larger group comes to a consensus
23:21:32 sean: wether we come to a consensus doesn't really matter, since what matter is what happens in the larger group
23:22:32 silvia: I agree not to recommend a format, but we could evaluate each format against the table that John is creating
23:22:37 sean: that's good homework to do
23:22:55 judy: so is such an evaluation to most useful thing we can do?
23:23:23 [broad agreement in the present group members]
23:23:52 … we will work through his matrix as soon as it is available
23:24:16 … so would we want the presentations after this then or dig straight into the evaluation?
23:24:39 sean: if we are going to do a presentation, then that should be around the matrix rather than an abstract introduction
23:24:49 janina: absolutely agree
23:25:11 sean: if we want to do the evaluation in the next 2 weeks, we better get that table real soon
23:25:36 judy: we might want to distribute the evaluation out to people
23:25:51 sean: I am happy to present TTML
23:26:03 … TTML is not SMIL
23:26:09 janina: will you do both then?
23:26:13 sean: not on the same day
23:26:36 judy: it would be good if Geoff could be present
23:27:08 janina: we will ask Ian to present on WebSRT
23:28:23 silvia: Ian would be the best to present on WebSRT but I am sure Eric and I can together explain it, too
23:28:30 .. though we might get details wrong
23:29:05 zakim, next item
23:29:05 agendum 16. "plan presentations on other remaining technical approaches" taken up [from Judy]
23:29:28 zakim, take up next item
23:29:28