HTML-A11Y telecon -- 25 Aug 2010

<janina> agenda: this

<janina> agenda CandidateGap Analysis: WebSRT; WMML, Controls, TTML, SMIL3, Etc.

<scribe> agenda: this

<janina> scribe: silvia

agenda CandidateGap Analysis: WebSRT; WMML, Controls, TTML, SMIL3, Etc.

zakim: take up item 1

<janina> So, we already have a scribe and can move on.

Identify Scribe

Open items:

action-52

JF on priority list -> still pending

<scribe> ACTION: 53 to http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/53 <- today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/25-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 53

re: action 54: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/54 <- today

Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

User Requirements: Revised Title, Intro & Sec. 2.5; Next Steps

janina: status update

… Michael and Silvia helped get Janina's and Judy's edits into the file

… into the requirements document

… a couple of things to highlight, that the group should look at and approve

<janina> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements

… at the very top, I added a couple of paragraphs to explain better what this document is about

<Judy> +1 on the title change

… I changed the title to "Media Accessibility User Requirements"

… trying to emphasize that these are user and not user agent requirements

… the introduction got a work-over, too

eric: I think those are both very necessary changes

+1 from me on both

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Content_Navigation_by_Content_Structure

janina: we hadn't define granularity level and anxilliary content in the content navigation section

… so I have added this

eric: I think that's a nice explanation of it

janina: I wanted to make sure it's understood that the navigation interrupts the sequential viewing of the content

… we need a way to get to them, to learn about them, and to get back to them later

eric: looks good

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

judy: I wanted to make a comment about the disability categorisation, which is section 1

… I wanted to make some changes to the learning disabilities description

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities

… I want to arrange it to be more in line with this document

… I am proposing update the learning disabilities description by midnight tonight

… but there will be continuing improvements to the doc

janina: should we declare it at the top as a living document?

judy: I want to particularly continually improve section 1 of this

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

janina: I was trying to do a top-to-bottom read and I have a couple of small things, but one big thing

… we use "audio description" for described audio

… the preferred way today is "video description", since it can come in all sorts of content types, e.g. text or audio

judy: I wouldn't want this to hold it back

<janina> described video

<Judy> [janina is saying "described video"]

… "described video" is the correct term now

silvia: happy to make the change

judy: if there are other simple edits, please let me know and I can make the changes by tonight

janina: this is I think my list before we can go towards group consensus

judy: proposal to approve as a finalized document of the group with the changes just discussed

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

janina: any objections?

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

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

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

<janina> scribenic?

<janina> scribe: silvia

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

<janina> +1

<Judy> +1

<Eric_Carlson> +1

<Judy> and +1 from Sean

Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM

janina: we are looking for a place to host NCAM's examples to make them available to the larger group

… I know, Eric re-cast one of the demos

silvia: can we have the compositing assets from both examples

… if you could ask Geoff for that, janina, that would be helpful

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

Synchronizing Asynchronous Alternative Media Resources Followup

nothing to discuss before we get John's summary document

next meetings, confirm date/time, choose scribe

judy: we should see if we can get proponents to introduce their respective specs

resume discussion of silvia's presentation

janina: this is to resume from the discussion last week

… some discussion happened on list

eric: we discussed whether an audio element should have a display of captions, since it doesn't have a visual presentation

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

janina: I'm curious to look at the formats now

… we have four candidates: TTML, SMIL3, WMML, and WebSRT

sean: are you talking about SMIL as a whole or just SMIL Text?

judy: just the restricted format

sean: SMIL has a text format called SMILText which can be used within SMIL and is like a captioning format

… it's a simple but different version to TTML

judy: can you present on that? 15-20 min is what I am thinking abou

sean: yes

silvia: today or next week?

judy: I am thinking of getting these presentations next week and the week after

sean: what is the purpose of these presentations?

janina: as a run through existing formats to see what they can offer to facilitate meeting the user requirements

… we need to identify to advantages and disadvantages of all the technologies, potentially even merge different capabilities of one into the other

eric: I wonder whether it really makes sense for us to recommend one format over another

sean: even if we come up with a representation, where will that go

… we can educate this group, but a recommendation is not up to us to make

eric: I agree and it would be a significant investment of our time to go through them all and understand them

sean: we could all educate ourselves outside this group, since a phone conference will not give us an in-depth understanding

judy: if we cannot recommend a format, we can at least give requirements matching information on the formats

… we do want to provide some input into the process of choosing a format

sean: I think this group should stay around to mediate the discussion in the wider group

… what I don't want to see happen is that this group provides a proposal

<Eric_Carlson> +1

plh: I understand why some people in this group do not want to recommend a format

<Judy> [so with video codec, it will be implementation-dependent because no agreement in the larger group]

… we now have the opportunity to make a recommendation on a baseline captioning format

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

sean: I want to have the argument twice

(sorry: that was on the use of don't in janina's sentence)

judy: I am listening to Philippe's comments carefully because he has his eye on the overall process

… if we can get to some statement of guidance, because the larger WG doesn't quite have our insights yet

… so if we can get closer to a recommendation, that would probably be good

… 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

… something that we can capture against the requirements

… or do people have a proposal for a better way to proceed

… in order to capture better what we have done?

… so, Silvia presented on some parts before - was that useful?

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

<Judy> silvia: we need to get closer to people being able to make up their minds

<Judy> philippe: i don't have more suggestions at this time

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

… but I don't think we should recommend a format as a group

janina: we should be able to solve all our text-related requirements with one text format, right?

eric: I would go so far to say that a format the doesn't support all these needs isn't adequate

judy: it would be useful to also make such a statement as a group on the text-related format

janina: we have been told "you cannot even give us a captioning format"

judy: how the format options lign up again requirements is important for us to express

… so that formats can be evaluated objectively and openly

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

judy: we have to lead how the larger group comes to a consensus

sean: wether we come to a consensus doesn't really matter, since what matter is what happens in the larger group

silvia: I agree not to recommend a format, but we could evaluate each format against the table that John is creating

sean: that's good homework to do

judy: so is such an evaluation to most useful thing we can do?

[broad agreement in the present group members]

… we will work through his matrix as soon as it is available

… so would we want the presentations after this then or dig straight into the evaluation?

sean: if we are going to do a presentation, then that should be around the matrix rather than an abstract introduction

janina: absolutely agree

sean: if we want to do the evaluation in the next 2 weeks, we better get that table real soon

judy: we might want to distribute the evaluation out to people

sean: I am happy to present TTML

… TTML is not SMIL

janina: will you do both then?

sean: not on the same day

judy: it would be good if Geoff could be present

janina: we will ask Ian to present on WebSRT

silvia: Ian would be the best to present on WebSRT but I am sure Eric and I can together explain it, too
... though we might get details wrong

plan presentations on other remaining technical approaches

we will have the presentations and evaluation in the next couple of weeks

- DRAFT -

HTML-A11Y telecon

25 Aug 2010

Attendees

Contents