IRC log of html-a11y on 2010-11-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

23:01:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
23:01:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/10-html-a11y-irc
23:01:24 [janina]
zakim, this will be WAI_PFWG(A11Y)
23:01:24 [Zakim]
ok, janina, I see WAI_PFWG(A11Y)6:00PM already started
23:01:30 [janina]
zakim, call janina
23:01:30 [Zakim]
ok, janina; the call is being made
23:01:32 [Zakim]
+Janina
23:02:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.823.aabb
23:02:02 [janina]
zakim, who's here?
23:02:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +44.154.558.aaaa, Janina, +1.408.823.aabb
23:02:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, Sean, silvia, MikeSmith, oedipus_away, sideshow, trackbot
23:02:39 [janina]
zakim, +44.154.558.aaaa is Sean_Hayes
23:02:39 [Zakim]
+Sean_Hayes; got it
23:03:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.468.aacc
23:03:40 [janina]
zakim, +1.408.823.aabb is Eric_Carlson
23:03:40 [Zakim]
+Eric_Carlson; got it
23:03:50 [JF]
JF has joined #html-a11y
23:04:24 [janina]
zakim, +1.650.468.aacc is John_Foliot
23:04:24 [Zakim]
+John_Foliot; got it
23:04:45 [janina]
Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
23:04:45 [janina]
Chair: Janina_Sajka
23:04:45 [janina]
agenda: this
23:04:45 [janina]
agenda+ Identify Scribe
23:04:45 [janina]
agenda+ Actions Review
23:04:45 [janina]
agenda+ Status Updates & Brief Reports: TPAC; User Reqs;
23:04:48 [janina]
agenda+ Categorization of Media A11y Requirements
23:04:50 [janina]
agenda+ Technical Requirements Prioritizations and Dependencies
23:04:51 [janina]
agenda+ Handling Multiple Tracks http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Oct/0520.html
23:04:53 [janina]
agenda+ Candidate Formats Review Preparation: WebSRT; TTML; Others?
23:04:55 [Zakim]
+Judy
23:04:56 [janina]
agenda+ Other Business?
23:04:57 [janina]
agenda+ next meeting
23:05:00 [janina]
agenda+ be done
23:05:21 [Zakim]
+ +61.2.801.2.aadd
23:05:37 [silvia]
zakim, aadd is me
23:05:37 [Zakim]
+silvia; got it
23:05:52 [janina]
zakim, +61.2.801.2.aadd is Silvia_Pfiefer
23:05:52 [Zakim]
sorry, janina, I do not recognize a party named '+61.2.801.2.aadd'
23:05:52 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
23:05:53 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
23:05:54 [frankolivier]
frankolivier has joined #html-a11y
23:06:03 [janina]
zakim, +61.2.801.2.aadd is Silvia
23:06:03 [Zakim]
sorry, janina, I do not recognize a party named '+61.2.801.2.aadd'
23:06:29 [janina]
zakim, who's here?
23:06:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sean_Hayes, Janina, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Judy, silvia (muted)
23:06:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see frankolivier, JF, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, Sean, silvia, MikeSmith, oedipus_away, sideshow, trackbot
23:06:55 [janina]
zakim, take up item 1
23:06:55 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Identify Scribe" taken up [from janina]
23:07:11 [janina]
scribe: John_Foliot
23:07:25 [janina]
scribe: jf
23:07:41 [JF]
scribe: JF
23:07:57 [janina]
scribe: John
23:08:12 [janina]
zakim, next item
23:08:12 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Actions Review" taken up [from janina]
23:08:50 [JF]
JS - suggest we skip over Action items so that we can focus on heavy agenda
23:08:59 [janina]
zakim, next item
23:08:59 [Zakim]
agendum 2 was just opened, janina
23:09:04 [JF]
zakim, next item
23:09:04 [Zakim]
agendum 2 was just opened, JF
23:09:06 [janina]
zakim, close item 2
23:09:06 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Actions Review, closed
23:09:08 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
23:09:10 [Zakim]
3. Status Updates & Brief Reports: TPAC; User Reqs; [from janina]
23:09:13 [janina]
zakim, next item
23:09:13 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Status Updates & Brief Reports: TPAC; User Reqs;" taken up [from janina]
23:09:33 [JF]
JS - will be brief on status updates
23:09:44 [JF]
TPAC was very eventful, managed to move things forward
23:10:00 [JF]
key thing was thursday meeting on media
23:10:29 [JF]
Frank categorized the requirements into 4 different buckets
23:10:40 [JF]
many were UX issues
23:11:15 [JF]
others related to 'tracks' - the time text format issue
23:11:23 [JF]
perhaps spin that off to another WG
23:11:30 [JF]
or handle seperately
23:12:08 [JF]
despite wide concern of user reqs prior to TPAC, things seem to be less of a concern
23:12:21 [JF]
categorization helped to defuse this
23:13:14 [JF]
JF - is the splitting off of time text format a done deal?
23:13:28 [JF]
JS- not yet, is a priority discussion for this group
23:14:01 [JF]
Judy - has had several assurances that there was no pre-empting of this discussion/decision
23:14:20 [JF]
the discussion was about modularizing how a11y / media is handled
23:14:59 [JF]
however the decision has not been made
23:15:21 [JF]
JS- providing a wiki of the discussions at TPAC
23:15:49 [judy_]
judy_ has joined #html-a11y
23:16:16 [JF]
subtext of meetings showed a stron affinity for webSRT
23:17:04 [JF]
number of reasons why some don't like TTML (XML issues)
23:17:20 [JF]
however we should still do the gap analysis
23:17:33 [JF]
need to do this soon - within the next week or 3
23:18:13 [JF]
JS - 2 key decisions - are we comfortable with splitting off the discussion on time formats, and logistics around gap analysis
23:19:49 [janina]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Minuteszakim, next item
23:19:59 [judy_]
agenda?
23:20:07 [janina]
zakim, next item
23:20:21 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Categorization of Media A11y Requirements" taken up [from janina]
23:20:31 [janina]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0066.html
23:20:42 [JF]
JS - review Franks report
23:20:55 [judy_]
zakim, who's here?
23:20:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sean_Hayes, Janina, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Judy, silvia (muted)
23:20:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see judy_, frankolivier, JF, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, Sean, silvia, MikeSmith, oedipus_away, sideshow, trackbot
23:21:09 [JF]
take on the bigger issue first - how do people feel about splitting the time text format into a seperate group
23:21:17 [JF]
SH - thinks it is a good idea
23:21:34 [JF]
believes that Frank agrees - so can be taken as MS position
23:21:45 [JF]
EC - I think it is a good idea as well
23:22:00 [JF]
JB - think it may be good for development of the issue
23:22:28 [JF]
one of the tricky things is whether the media format that is tied to HTML5 does end up being specified as a full feature baseline
23:22:42 [JF]
if we don't have that, there are multiple risks for accessibility
23:22:51 [JF]
not sure if they have all been documented
23:23:11 [JF]
when we built out the user reqs we didn't consider spliting out at that time
23:23:31 [JF]
if media format changes over time, we may have discontinuity
23:23:40 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
23:23:40 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
23:24:04 [janina]
q?
23:24:12 [JF]
may be very good to have the flexibility to recognize multiple formats, but if we have a baseline we need to have additional care/caution in doing that
23:24:31 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
23:24:32 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
23:25:03 [JF]
Judy notes there was some discussion of 'plugins' at a lunch-table discussionat TPAC
23:25:19 [JF]
however plugins don't scale well for many users with a11y needs
23:25:35 [JF]
EC - not all browsers support the same plugins
23:25:51 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
23:25:51 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
23:25:54 [JF]
we are already in a situation where we don't have baseline for video and audio files (codec issue)
23:26:16 [JF]
SP - this shouldn't stop us for trying for a baseline format for the text formats
23:26:27 [JF]
see this as a goal to arrive at a baseline format
23:26:40 [JF]
EC - agrees as well
23:26:44 [judy_]
[judy notes that doesn't think that modularizing is a problem by itself, but that it requires extra consideration for a number of interoperability issues]
23:26:44 [JF]
JF +1
23:27:16 [JF]
JB: agree that this is an issue, but can we get out of that "well"
23:27:32 [JF]
there was general agreement that modularization is a good way forward
23:27:33 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
23:27:33 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
23:28:07 [JF]
SH: has already found instances of <track> in the wild, and using JavaScript to process it
23:28:39 [JF]
JB: can we continue to discuss this? need to have a better understanding of this. how does this handle the interop issues?
23:29:39 [JF]
SH: haven't done extensive research, but from what have seen there is an ability to detect events in the video and associate it to timestamp file
23:30:04 [JF]
relies on JS to do the processing
23:30:13 [JF]
+q
23:30:36 [silvia]
+q
23:31:05 [janina]
q?
23:31:48 [silvia]
ack me
23:31:55 [JF]
ack JF
23:32:08 [JF]
SP: concerned that the track element alone is sufficient
23:32:26 [JF]
if it can read the files, and expose the cues
23:32:53 [JF]
plan is to go beyond libraries to do the track implementation
23:32:56 [janina]
q?
23:33:09 [JF]
since the browser is the only thing that can do the time alignment properly
23:33:14 [judy_]
q+
23:33:18 [JF]
and it should be implemented in the browser
23:33:46 [JF]
so having an abstract JS API is good, we really need a baseline format that all browsers support
23:33:55 [JF]
JF: +1
23:34:07 [Sean]
q+
23:34:48 [JF]
JS: seems that it is important as it's not just captions, especially given some of the other user requirements
23:35:12 [janina]
q?
23:35:36 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
23:35:36 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
23:36:42 [judy_]
john: i would like to see more stable and predictable behavior than just relying on the javascript library
23:37:21 [JF]
SH: clarification - not saying that browsers shouldn't have native support, but simply that with JS today we can do most of it now
23:37:30 [judy_]
q+
23:37:40 [judy_]
ack j
23:37:44 [judy_]
q+
23:37:45 [janina]
q?
23:37:57 [janina]
ack sh
23:38:10 [janina]
ack sh
23:38:22 [JF]
JB: suggest that if we give feedback to larger WG, that we also note that we will be wanting to lookl very carefully at the interop issues
23:38:26 [janina]
ack se
23:38:32 [janina]
ack ju
23:38:37 [silvia]
q+
23:38:46 [JF]
that we believe that the track element handles a lot of it, but we want to ensure that interop is handled correctly
23:39:55 [silvia]
ack me
23:40:03 [janina]
ack sil
23:40:30 [JF]
SP: thinks it is simple. we need a sentence in the track element that states this is the baseline format for text-time format
23:41:47 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
23:41:47 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
23:42:16 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
23:42:16 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
23:42:18 [JF]
EC: clarification - the things that Sean is talking about works now
23:43:17 [JF]
+q
23:44:03 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
23:44:03 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
23:44:31 [janina]
q?
23:44:36 [janina]
ack jf
23:46:09 [judy_]
q+
23:46:41 [JF]
JS: the concern is not how/where the baseline time format is defined, but how it is included in the HTML5 spec
23:46:50 [janina]
q?
23:46:55 [janina]
ack ju
23:47:06 [silvia]
q+
23:47:31 [JF]
JB: learned today that possibly PF would take on the time-format/WebSRT WG
23:48:20 [JF]
thinks that even though there seems to be a inference that WebSRT will be the baseline format, need to confirm that
23:48:43 [JF]
thinks that while PF is a good place for this to happen, PF is already overloaded
23:49:15 [JF]
important to ensure charter is done right, so that right people are included, and that it is done in accordance with IP rules, etc.
23:49:23 [silvia]
q-
23:49:27 [janina]
q?
23:51:19 [JF]
JB: suggests that we try to go through the where and who questions before we tackle the 'what' but at the same time the gap analysis on WebSRT should start
23:52:15 [JF]
(discussion on timelines)
23:53:22 [JF]
JS: next question is, did Frank get the 'buckets' right - are there any questions/concerns
23:53:49 [JF]
do we need more specificity re: chapters
23:53:58 [JF]
do we need to tweak this document
23:54:14 [JF]
JB: has everyone had a chance to read through Franks note
23:54:35 [JF]
EC - did a fairly quick read, happy to see it happened - seemed good
23:54:54 [JF]
JS: my sense is that it is generally right
23:55:05 [JF]
but we should take the time to ensure it is right
23:55:12 [JF]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0066.html
23:55:16 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
23:55:16 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
23:55:46 [JF]
SP: a few questions - do we have bugs in the bugtracker for all of these issues
23:55:50 [JF]
there were a few questions
23:57:35 [judy_]
+1 to silvia's suggestion to be sure to capture the user &/or tech requirements that are indeed directly needed in the spec
23:58:47 [silvia]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0080.html
23:59:09 [JF]
asks that others review and comment on her email
00:00:12 [JF]
JS: with panning - if there is stereo sound it is very important not to have the description in the same pan location
00:01:32 [JF]
SP: thinks that this should be handled by the a11y API
00:02:14 [JF]
as long as the descriptive track is a separate track, it becomes an OS/user agent issue
00:02:41 [JF]
SP: might be able to remove it from the html5 spec and into the operating system spec
00:03:17 [JF]
there will be a lot of things coming from this work that will need to be addressed in the a11y API moving forward
00:03:25 [JF]
perhaps we should be capturing this as well
00:03:47 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
00:03:47 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
00:04:15 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
00:04:15 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
00:04:22 [JF]
zakim, next item
00:04:22 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JF
00:04:30 [janina]
q?
00:04:38 [janina]
ack jan
00:05:25 [JF]
SP: suggest that Franks matrix supersedes the checklist. suggest that we include Franks data into the checklist, and remove the technology column
00:05:27 [janina]
q?
00:05:37 [JF]
EC - agrees with silvia
00:05:48 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
00:05:48 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
00:05:53 [judy_]
q+
00:05:56 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
00:05:56 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
00:06:32 [janina]
q?
00:06:37 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
00:06:37 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
00:06:38 [janina]
ack j
00:07:01 [JF]
JB: would like to ask a different question
00:07:15 [JF]
we've talked about gap analysis, but is this on the agenda
00:07:32 [JF]
JS: are we agree to remove the technology column and replace with Franks work?
00:07:40 [JF]
(seems to have objections)
00:08:06 [JF]
correction - *no* objections
00:08:25 [janina]
resolved: We will remove the technology column in our matrix, replacing it with Frank's categorizations.
00:08:54 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
00:08:54 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
00:09:13 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
00:09:13 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
00:09:24 [janina]
action: Silvia to replace the technology column in our matrix with Frank's categorizations
00:09:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-76 - Replace the technology column in our matrix with Frank's categorizations [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2010-11-18].
00:10:01 [JF]
zakim, next item
00:10:01 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Technical Requirements Prioritizations and Dependencies" taken up [from janina]
00:10:06 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
00:10:06 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
00:10:27 [JF]
SP: belives that this is an ongoing discussion on email
00:10:30 [JF]
different ideas
00:10:32 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
00:10:32 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
00:10:41 [JF]
zakim, next item
00:10:41 [Zakim]
agendum 5 was just opened, JF
00:11:02 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
00:11:02 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
00:11:06 [judy_]
q+
00:11:11 [JF]
zakim, next item
00:11:11 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JF
00:12:07 [JF]
SP: have been working on the gap analysis on WebSRT - may be able to present on this next week
00:12:14 [JF]
JB: thinks that this is a very good idea
00:13:03 [JF]
suggest that a qualitative factor be considered: not only what is the gap, but are there any issues that the architecture would not be able to support a particular requirement
00:13:26 [JF]
(or complexity issue)
00:13:39 [JF]
SP: can have that readyby next week
00:14:21 [JF]
SH: has already done the gap analysis on TTML, can discuss next week
00:14:24 [JF]
as well
00:14:25 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
00:14:25 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
00:14:47 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
00:14:47 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
00:15:04 [JF]
JS: mindful that we are in a rush to get this done, but don't want to unduly restrict time/discussion
00:15:19 [judy_]
+1 to an interleafed session
00:15:33 [JF]
SP: suggests we do this as an interleaved way, requirement by requirement, so that we all arrive at the same understanding
00:15:41 [JF]
+1 to ath
00:16:26 [JF]
SH: likes this approach as well, but do we also want a brief overview of each format?
00:16:52 [JF]
JB: 2 weeks from now is US thanksgiving
00:17:13 [JF]
and concerned that we lose an opportunity
00:18:07 [JF]
SP: if we move the call 2 hours earlier than it makes it easier on the europeans
00:18:18 [JF]
JB: could we do this in 2 hours next week?
00:18:37 [JF]
+q
00:20:18 [judy_]
ack ju
00:20:23 [JF]
SP: if we move the call forward 2 hours next week, can we perhaps do a "workshop"?
00:20:28 [JF]
ack JF
00:20:39 [JF]
and then make it longer
00:21:06 [JF]
JS: inclined to say that those on the call have first call on time
00:21:41 [JF]
SH: agrees that if we have a larger workshop, we should do it separately from what we want to achieve next week
00:22:03 [JF]
JB: 2 issues - extending next weeks call, and having a broader discussion
00:22:27 [JF]
JS: proposal is thta we not meet in 2 weeks (US Thanksgiving eve)
00:22:38 [JF]
(no objections)
00:23:26 [JF]
JS: is there any objection to starting 2 hours earlier and extending beyond 90 minutes to try and go through the entire gab analysis?
00:23:37 [JF]
JB: thinks this is very good idea, but may be late
00:24:04 [JF]
JS: with no objections, will make those arrangements for next week
00:24:35 [silvia]
q+
00:25:05 [JF]
SH: moving the meeting an hour earlier would be better, but 2 hours forward (on a regular basis would be less preferable)
00:26:04 [JF]
JS: next week we will move the meeting 2 hours earlier, then after US Thanksgiving we will resume our 90 minute meetings 1 hour earlier
00:26:20 [JF]
JB: will work on getting Geoff on the call next week
00:26:41 [JF]
SP: hopes everyone is good for next week
00:28:03 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
00:28:03 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
00:28:10 [JF]
JF to take the Action assigned to Silvia
00:28:36 [JF]
JS: thanks to all. meeting adjourned
00:28:40 [Zakim]
-Eric_Carlson
00:28:41 [Zakim]
-Judy
00:28:46 [Zakim]
-silvia
00:28:47 [JF]
zakim, bye
00:28:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #html-a11y
00:28:47 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Janina, Sean_Hayes, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Judy, +61.2.801.2.aadd, silvia
00:29:10 [JF]
rrsagent, make_log
00:29:10 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make_log', JF. Try /msg RRSAgent help
00:29:22 [JF]
rrsagent, make log public
00:29:35 [JF]
rrsagent, make minutes
00:29:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/10-html-a11y-minutes.html JF
00:35:57 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
00:40:12 [judy_]
s/has had several assurances that there was/had had several assurances that there would be/
00:41:08 [MikeSmith_]
MikeSmith_ has joined #html-a11y
00:41:49 [judy_]
rrsagent, make minutes
00:41:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/10-html-a11y-minutes.html judy_
00:50:34 [MikeSmith_]
MikeSmith_ has joined #html-a11y
01:47:43 [MikeSmith_]
MikeSmith_ has joined #html-a11y
03:05:31 [MikeSmith_]
MikeSmith_ has joined #html-a11y