See also: IRC log
<scribe> agenda: this
<scribe> scribe: janina
<trackbot> ACTION-52 Create a prioritized list due 30 august notes added
<trackbot> ACTION-53 Find location for ncam extended description demos notes added
<trackbot> If you meant to close ACTION-53, please use 'close ACTION-53'
<silvia> close ACTION-53
<trackbot> ACTION-53 Find location for ncam extended description demos closed
<silvia> close ACTION-52
<trackbot> ACTION-52 Create a prioritized list due 30 august closed
re action-54 still requires confirmation, held over
<JF> seems my call failed, I am logging back in
js: issues with voip presentint
last week, user reqs rescheduled for this week
... also, html-wg strongly invited to consensus around our user reqs, so that we will not confuse discussion of them with technology solutions as we move forward.
jf: is this the way we should proceed?
fo: suggesting ml a primary
... also resource identification
sp: one of the first ml expected
coming from what. there are others we want to look at.
... specifically, websrt.
fo: but, before we get to that, what's the ml like within the track?
sp: ml has gone in to the what
... personally, few issues with what what has so far re ml
fo: believe the resource identification is ok--will be helpful to have spec text soon, esp if for ie9
sp: currently what in discussion
on spec; i've been active there; ian has responded, and i have
yet to digest his response
... we want to see it done right, which means we need to ramp up our work
... we need to provide feedback on what we need addressed
jb: i believe the discussion needs to be happening on w3c lists, not on what, esp as what has not covered a11y systematically
[pinging sivia! irc to silvia!]
jb: agrees with silvia that
timing is essential issue, but our reqs work has also been
... it will be helpful to position the main dialog of our work on w3c space, especially as we are coordinating on a11y
ec: what silvia is talking about is the track selection proposal which only exists in the what wg at this time
jb: i think it's a broader
discussion than that
... yes, we need to keep our pace moving forward
sh: how did the group have a
discussion about text. we need to discuss before it goes into
the spec. we can't have a text mechanism without that
... we need to get a proposal on the floor.
jb: i think we can achieve that
via our issues and proposals.
... also, we're looking at ways to adjust the tf process to help streamline this, though can't say more on this at this time. the expectation is better process.
jf: earlier in the year we had
proposals in the wiki, we set those aside as we revisited user
... i believe we also ran a wbs against these? not sure ...
... it's not that we haven't been there ...
sp: agree with everything people
are saying. problem there is currently no spec text in w3c
... after next what revision people are likely to start implementing based on what specs
... this is why we need to do both.
jb: so maybe just a few more
moments on process, and then we return to the spec text in
... suggest actioning self and janina to timeline getting spec text for us to consider.
jf: q, what about our 2 earlier proposals? track api, etc, are they up to date?
ec: text that's in what spec is
all based on our docs earlier in the year.
... ian working with silvia has refined our earlier work, refining it into spec text
... in my opinion he has improved on our start, though it is definitely based on our earlier effort
sp: exactly.sp: existing text
... suggest proposing to integrate into w3c docs so that we can move forward
<silvia> the sections that should be adopted into the W3C spec are:
<silvia> * the <track> markup
jf: can we ask silvia to do that on email first? so we can first discuss on email?
<silvia> * the related rendering section
js: we need to make sure our reqs are not defeated by this spec lang
jf: yes, so if we have it in our
docs, we can take up that discussion.
... we need to be very cautious, but also expeditious
jb: ok with moving building blocks forward. and thanks, frank, for provoking us to move forward. we're in better shape on this today than a few months ago!
jf: so, can we return to the matrix?
jf: currently four columns -- the
bulleted item, it's identifier, the must/shoud/may; and the
tech required for it
... if we can agree on the content, then we can cross check and make decisions
... looking at captioning, which is filled out fairly well, is this the way to go? is this useful?
jf: ok, taking silence is
... so, how to proceed? on call? assigning sections to indivieduals?
... what do our engineers think?
sp: think we should finish then we can start looking at proposed specs, ttml, websrt, etc
jf: but the question is how to
continue with the matrix?
... should we just work on the call?
sp: we should continue on email
ec: agree on email, and editing wiki, should be most expeditious
jf: so, we have a list of one word tech identifiers; should we agree a list that we would ascribe? or, am i overthinking this.
ec: not sure.
js: suggesting a working gloss list up top, so as to be consistent in our identifier usage.
jf: suggest starting with the terms already proposed
[john is reading the current list ...]
js: do we need to distinguish
video vs audio rendering
... could be audio.rendering, tts.rendering, video.rendering
jf: agree distinction between
types of rendering is important, and a dictionary list up top
will be useful.
... looking now for wholesale progress, not the refining points ---- at this time
<frankolivier> phone trouble; calling back
js: suggesting even quick and dirty defs in the gloss/dictionary would be helpful
ec: agree with basic gloss up top
jf: are there other tech questions we need to discuss now?
ec: no, without having seen the list, nothing is coming to mind.
jf: so we have a path, perhaps a short meeting today?
js: looking to our engineering professionals to take the lead on filling this out
jb: really think we need
commitment, including deadlines on this
... perhaps go around the room on this?
... if not specific actioning, it won't happen. we're all busy with competing priorities.
[john raising that question around with our engineers ...]
ec: don't have much time, and it's impossible for me to commit to particular sections not having seen the matrix, but i will spend time on it this week
sp: eric, suggest picking an area
not yet marked up and go for it. i suggest that's how each of
us should proceed.
... i will do the same.
... i'm particularly interested in the qtext format, for instance, but everything needs assessment.
sh: will take a look at it, but my ability is intermittant at the moment as i'm traveling this weekend.
jf: so, we've agreed progress in our larger task is facilitated by progress on this matrix, so we need to get this done
jb: want to ask some additional
questions re process moving forward ...
... talking re people on the call right now ...
... willing to ask others to help
<silvia> I just had an initial go at a Glossary under the matrix: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Glossary
sp: silvia, why am i not surprised! i love your get it done spirit!
jb: any suggestions for moving other pieces moving forward in parallel, please speak up
js: will ask kenny johar re
struct nav and granularity
... also geof freed re dv and captioning
... suggest we not go too far afield looking for people to work on this, as it may only add confusion
sp: jim allen
jf: i'll ask jim
sp: we want to wrap this next week, if we can.
jb: have we forgotten our mini presentations on formats? websrt, ttml, etc?
sp: suggest starting with ttml next week, assuming matrix is ready, believe sean was on tap for ttml?
jb: sean, is that still ok?
sean, will take some work between the table being completed and preparing the presentation.
jf: user reqs have not changed
sean: but there's this table, i need to work off this table matrix
js: but what we need is a complete matrix, so the tech column can be sorted, dups removed, and we can build a matrix showing what available techs provide, such as ttml, websrt, etc.
jf: anything else today?
js: we're done for today
jf: thanks all
jb: thanks for the wiki page.
rrsagent make minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Default Present: Janina, +1.408.823.aaaa, +1.650.862.aabb, John_Foliot, Judy, +44.154.558.aacc, Sean_Hayes, Eric_Carlson, Silvia, Frank_Olivier Present: Janina +1.408.823.aaaa +1.650.862.aabb John_Foliot Judy +44.154.558.aacc Sean_Hayes Eric_Carlson Silvia Frank_Olivier Got date from IRC log name: 08 Sep 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/08-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]