HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 15 Sep 2010

<JF> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Date: 15 September 2010

<JF> scribe: JF

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<janina> agenda: this

<janina> scribe: John

<janina> scribe: John_Foliot

<JF> zakim:net item

<JF> zakim: next item

<JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

<janina> scribe: jf

Identify Scribe

<janina> scribe will be John Foliot

Actions Review

Only one action item left, on Judy

zakim take up item 3

User Requirements: Update RE Additional Disclaimer

Janina report last week to the HTML WG

so far no questions or comments

presentation went smoothly and well recieved

<silvia> +q

yes we can hear Silvia

<janina> Silvia, we hear you

;)

Silvia - Q: did janina speak about a process about moving content into the W3C Draft

regarding technical issues

janina - pointed the chairs to the checklist and user requirements, and indicated that we are very close to analysis of the different time-stamp formats

Actions Review

Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM

Janina - in conversation with Geoff about proof of concept videos

having examples. even in older formats is useful - Geoff has a number of examples

Janina - just want to confirm that these would be useful, even if using older tech

Eric - useful to have the rendered output so that we can see what it is supposed to look like

and then perhaps the individual pieces so that we can re-create in current technologies as well

will request thta of Geoff

zakin, take up item 5

Time/Track Formats

Janina, can we bring over some of the WHAT WG language without specifying WebSRT

<silvia> +q

seems that via email list that it would be possible but with some work

asking if Sean/Silvia/Eric could work on this?

Sean: concern is over patent Policy

so what we need to identify the edits we need to have made, ask ian/WHAT WG to make those changes, then move into the W3C spec

so suggest we produce a list of changes and request the editor make the changes

Silvia: a little worried about us going ahead and making radical changes to ian's work

suggest that we are concerned about the explicit mention of WebSRT

and ak editor if he would be prepared to remove specific reference to WebSRT and instead express the ideas in a more abstract way

so that WebSRT could be one of the text formats, but others would be easily plug-in instead

Sean: we could simply ask ian to do thi, and then see what his response is

Judy" believes that we need to involve PHL into this conversation

it may be a bit trickier than this

fair amount of discussion surrounding document license issues

so we need to ensure we are synched up with that dialog

Judy willing to take action item to see what is happening at W3C right now

Sean: one approach is to work in the wiki, and have ian review that and then adopt

using the wiki a safer route

re: IP issues

JF - ian will be on vacation soon

Judy will investigate timing issues

Janina: 2 possible approaches. start with Silvia's text and ask for bugs against it

of prefer that if Ian takes out the specific WebSRT text 9and provide a list of where) then we can perhaps move more quickly

Eric: sounds like we need to hear back from judy if there are any political or legal blockers
... if we revert back to the work that Silvia did, it will be a lot more work, whereas if we can get ian to work with us it will take much less time

janina: so paht is to await Judy's report back on policy/legal concerns, after which we sent a request to ian
... hope that we can get this rolling before next weeks call, with appropriate CC's on the note

more TBD

<scribe> (New Agenda item)

prioritizing user reqs for user agent work

<sean> +q

Eric: wants to stress his concerns over prioritization of the technical requirements, as if we leave it to browsers to work out that list it will be a dis-jointed effort

<Judy> ack si, ack ju

Notes thta JF has started working on that

Sean: perhaps add another column to the table

authors will want to meet WCAG, so have a column thta maps to WCAG a, aa, aaa

so that we also have an idea of which issues impact on WCAG

thta would help with a prioritization

Judy: think that what Sean is proposing (tying to WCAG) is an interesting way of looking at it

(notes that they are called conformance levels)

this will also remove some hesitation as these have already been vetted

understands the need to help guide the development process

Judy: tying it to the substance of the WCAG criteria

Sean volunteers to take a run at adding it to the list

Eric: we need to ensure that the core reqs are consistent across all browsers, as this will encourage authors to actually use this stufff

Seems that the attendees are in agreement that this general thrust is important, and that mapping to WCAG is a way forward

Silvia: what we need to determine the actual technologies which is almost at a higher level

silvia looking at 3 immeadiate needs

inclusion of tracks

interface to multi-track files

ensure that we can do the navigation requirements

(ie navigation coordination)

when we figure these out, they will answer many of the questions

we started with a bottom up list, now we need to start with a top down review of technologies, at which point we will reach a middle ground

thinks tracking Must/should.may as well as tracking WCAG A/AA/AAA is useful

but wants to see a programic approach as well

Janina: asking Silvia if WHATWG is understanding some of our more vexxing issues?

silvia - they seem to be, but will need to be tested - they are moving in that direction, but it is too early to tell

ACTIO: Sean to map WACG A, AA, and AAA against our checklist

<scribe> ACTION: Sean to map WACG A, AA, and AAA against our checklist [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/15-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Map WCAG A, AA, and AAA against our checklist [on Sean Hayes - due 2010-09-22].

Eric: not necessary to call out difference between mobile and desktop

not saying it will be easy work, but not overly concerned

Silvia; audio processing on a mobile device is not really that much - concurs with eric, no real technical restrictions

this will be a place where competition between browsers will be a good thing

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask silvia whether what has considered the use case where text descriptions exceed primary resource timeline

next meeting

Technical Requirements Prioritizations and Dependencies

thank you

<silvia> scribenick: silvia

jf: there are still many holes, but we're making progress

… had a conversation with Mike Smith and asked the engineers there to provide input

… input about the different types of technologies that we can add

… also, I took a stab and the must/should/may column

… ppl with extensive knowledge on a11y requirements should chip in

… hopefully it will help Eric's concerns, and the WCAG work will add to that, too

janina: can you take us through the ones that are mays?

jf: see http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist

… DV-3,5,6,7,8,10,11,14 are shoulds

… DV-9,13 are mays

janina: I don't think you can legally make DV-14 a should :-)

jf: … TVD-2 cnt, TVD-3, TVD-4 are shoulds

janina: is this taking us towards where we should go?

… also how will we resolve conflict within the group here on opinions on this?

kenny: I don't have write access to the page actually

michaelc: fixing it now

<JF> ACTION: Michael Cooper to grant Kenny Johar to write ability to the wiki (specifically at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Technical_Requirements_Prioritizations_and_Dependencies) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/15-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Cooper to grant Kenny Johar to write ability to the wiki (specifically at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Technical_Requirements_Prioritizations_and_Dependencies) [on Michael Cooper - due 2010-09-22].

kenny: I can email my input to the must/should/may judgements

jf: I was using my gut feel rather than WCAG to judge this

… I'm also considering engineering needs in this

… I'll wait for kenny's email and take a crack at the system requirements, too

… could other make a review, too, and highlight areas that are contentious

eric: the right way to do this would be with email

janina+silvia: I think so, too

jf: we still have some holes on the technologies

silvia: I will fix the holes in the technologies

<JF> Silvia will continue working on the technology requirements

janina: last week we agreed that Kenny would do the structural navigation technologies

silvia: no problem

janina: in summary, we should have a complete document by next week

<JF> Want to ensure that the technology column is done in abstract terms, and to date outisde assitance has been technology specific (Use SMIL, Real_Audio, etc.)

… and we should have a discussion on email with the prioritisation

jf: can we please make sure to have [media] prefixed in the email and can we make sure to have an email per item, so we can have a focused discussion

janina: ok, though that may lead to a lot of threads

… so have in your email e.g. [media] DV-12 - comment

<JF> Janina: believes we are done

… as the topic

<JF> any further question s?

<scribe> scribe: JF

janina, wrapping up - thanks to all

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

15 Sep 2010

Attendees

Contents

Identify Scribe

Actions Review

User Requirements: Update RE Additional Disclaimer

Actions Review

Proof of Concept Demos; Extended Descriptions from NCAM

Time/Track Formats

prioritizing user reqs for user agent work

next meeting

Technical Requirements Prioritizations and Dependencies

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output