HTML-A11Y telecon

01 Dec 2010

See also: IRC log


Janina, Geoff_Freed, Sean_Hayes, Kenny_Johar, Plh, +28012aaaa, silvia, Eric_Carlson, Judy


<janina> agenda: this

<janina> Hi, Silvia, yes, please join #htmla

<scribe> scribe: silvia

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


close action-68

gah, we are missing trackbot



Fallbacks http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0246.html

sorry, I'm wrong

Candidate Formats Report

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

trackbot, init

<plh> trackbot, associate this channel with #html-a11y

<trackbot> Associating this channel with #html-a11y...

<plh> action-88?

<trackbot> ACTION-88 -- Sean Hayes to review Media Fragment URI 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100624/ -- due 2010-11-24 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/88

<Sean> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc


<kenny_j> thanks.

after reviewing the long list of requirements last week on http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/TextFormat_Mapping_to_Requirements in became apparent that we need a short summary that we can use as a basis for recommendation

John has started preparing this in the above document

this may become the basis for the potential chartering of a new working group

it should lead to a work plan for the new working group

(this was Janina)

geoff: is there a timeline?

janina: it would be good if we can conclude it this week - it is a lot of desire to move quickly

geoff: I can help

silvia: I am working on several inputs from diverse parties towards missing features around captions etc
... I wonder what the urgency is

plh: seems to be a lack of coordination between the a11y WG and the HTML WG
... the HTML WG has an action item to investigate WebSRT further
... I don't want to have work on multiple formats for the same problem solution

janina: what we're not ready to say in this group is that we are perfectly comfortable with WebSRT to the exclusion of TTML

geoff: I agree - but given the statement of the browser vendors to support WebSRT, the question is whether we should spend time on TTML

janina: I am not clear whether all browser vendors object to TTML

… it sounds to me like MS may use WebSRT

sean: they will not oppose a common solution, but that doesn't mean they will oppose TTML

janina: I think I also heard there will be support from Adobe for TTML

… and others may announce this support, too

<Sean> what I said is that IE want a common solution, and will do webSRT if that is it

<Sean> that does not imply opposition to TTML

<Sean> k. well just being clear

silvia: if the browser have decided to support WebSRT, does it make sense for W3C to focus just on that

janina: well, we know that it doesn't yet provide for all needs

<Sean> when it is a W3C soec

<Sean> spec

geoff: when it's in w3c, we can get it into shape

<Sean> besides we dont have to wait for browser mftrs to do TTML

janina: I am uncomfortabel until I see solutions

<Sean> http://www.cwmwenallt.com/ttml/ttml-demo.htm


<gfreed> nice demo.

silvia: it's not quite true there are no implementations for websrt

… there are implementations like the one above

<Sean> yayquery demo not working in IE9


janina: are we ready to make a recommendation for something that hasn't proven to work for all our requirements?

silvia: I have added examples in the gap analysis for how to do it now or how to fix it

… if we get control of websrt, we can make it support all needs

janina: what is the feeling in the group?

sean: if TTML is not allowed to win, then what's the point?

geoff: I agree - making a recommendation by us doesn't seem to make much sense

plh: we need input from this group soon before decisions are being made in the html wg

janina: so what recommendation are we going to make?

geoff: it just doesn't seem like TTML is going to go anywhere here, so we should probably move with websrt or rather an improved version of it

kenny: do we have a clear indication from browser vendors that they will not support TTML?

janina: we heard it from a couple

kenny: can we do a quick check with the browser vendors?

<gfreed> geoff makes this recommendation reluctantly.

silvia: I think the indications we got from the vendors was very clear

Mozilla, Safari, Opera in particular

kenny_j: we should ask for official responses

… we don't have formal statements about what they are prepared to implement

janina: also if they are ready to provide the engineering resources to fix the gaps

plh: another way of doing this is to point out the gaps and that websrt needs to support these for us to make a recommendation

janina: identifying the gaps is important

<kenny_j> I need to drop off the call now. Janina, I will call you in half an hour.

silvia: we don't make the decision, so we can extend John's page and say that givne these things are fixed, we are happy to accept either format

plh: or we can propose to create a WG that will sort out those issues

<kenny_j> If we have a clear statement from the browser vendors that they will support web srt going forward + the additional features we introduce, then web srt is the logical choice.

geoff: I feel we are going to end up with a non-xml version of TTML

<kenny_j> bye all.

geoff: it will add a lot of time to the process
... in the meantime the caption world will move forward

sean: TTML is already done

geoff: a single format would be preferrable

plh: it is not clear to me if the html wg wants to point to one single format

… only if we want a single format do we have to push the HTML WG towards that

sean: the track format is the most important thing - the rest can be left open

silvia: I think we need a common baseline format supported by all browsers

sean: we can decouple the decision on what is the baseline format and what we standardize

… we don't want to hold up the HTML5 spec by insisting on a baseline format

plh: we need some recommendation to the HTML WG

… my fear is that the two groups are out of sync

janina: do we agree that a high level summary/gap analysis document would be good to return to the HTML WG

silvia: I'd be happy with that

geoff: if a WebSRT group is chartered, we will want to make sure that the requirements are met

janina: a new requirement just evolved in the mailing list on how to synchronize chunks binary and text

… if text and audio chunks are being synchronized at very different locations in the code, I am concerned whether this is smart

eric: I don't understand

<Judy> silvia here it is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0025.html

eric: David Singer sent a concern about what we really want to support in browsers

<JF> is there a different number for calling in? I go to a11y# and am told i am the first to join

geoff: no browser is supporting TTS natively

silvia: the screen reader would support this through the browser's accessibility API, which is already in place

geoff: is it going to be in sync

silvia: it's at a different level - the need to synchronize audio from resources and from TTS is not in the markup level

janina: what about synchronizing sign language and main video synchronization

eric: when the sign language takes longer than the speech, there needs to be some additional information

janina: I am also concerned that everything needs to pause at the same time

silvia: I think that's possible when implemented and controlled by the browser

judy: will we share the summary with the HTML WG?

janina: I think we should do that today

judy: are there edits missing?
... also the request from kenny to ask for positions by browser vendors

… there are foregone conclusions

judy: what will we be saying to the broader html wg and wrt to a Websrt charter?

… there is an urgent timeline

janina: I don't think we have a conclusion on any of these

judy: let's come to an agreement

1. John's summary

judy: do people feel this can be shared with the HTML WG tomorrow?

Sean: no

… my comments are on the mailing list

silvia: I'd like to add a bit more on the websrt side

judy: can we get this done by tomorrow?

plh: we can report to the html wg and give feedback that we are going to provide a document

judy: janina can provide an interim statement
... how will we get it finalized?

janina: if Sean and Silvia simply added their input to the wiki page, that would be ok by me

… I'd rather have the edits directly than lost in emails

judy: can we have the edits by Friday?

sean: yes

silvia: yes

geoff: do you want all the comments on the wiki?

janina: keep it terse and at the summary level - no details

… link to the details

2. Kenny's suggestion for vendor positions

judy: is there concensus from the group that this should happen?

… and how we could go about it?

janina: not sure there is concensus - I wonder how difficult it will be to get people on record

plh: let's ask eric :)

eric: committing the company's resources is way above my pay grade ;-)
... I am happy to ask the question to others in the company

silvia: what is the question?

how strongly do the browser vendors feel about a xml based solution?

judy: maybe it's a very sensitive question to answer

eric: if we are going to ask a question, it should not be about xml vs non-xml, but more directly whether a vendor plans implementing support for WebSRT or TTML or both

… whether there is a preference

judy: also whether there is an aversion

geoff: also needs to be about the extensions for websrt

silvia: maybe make a questionnaire with multiple questions

… TTML vs WebSRT

… whether generally XML

… whether support for WebSRT extensions

judy: might be something to raise tomorrow at html wg meeting

janina: might be difficult to summarize tomorrow

judy: we should mention that if websrt is the format, we need extensions

janina: the wider exploration had merit

… taking it all into a separate wg makes a lot of sense

judy: was there a consensus with regard to whether the new wg should be websrt specific or have a wider focus?

silvia: my opinion is the new wg should specifically look at websrt - there's already a wg for ttml

… the decision which format to use is not one that would be done in the wg

judy: there are other needs that go beyond the mere format that need to be resolved

silvia: the more we pack in the longer it will take

<gfreed> i have to hang up-- apologies.

<gfreed> will look for the notes and add my comments.

janina: we are clear on the first question - the second one is still unclear

<plh> rm

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/12/01 23:59:38 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the 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)

Succeeded: s/its ot/is it/
Succeeded: s/should the new wg be/was there a consensus with regard to whether the new wg should be/
Found Scribe: silvia
Inferring ScribeNick: silvia
Default Present: Janina, Geoff_Freed, Sean_Hayes, Kenny_Johar, Plh, +28012aaaa, silvia, Eric_Carlson, Judy
Present: Janina Geoff_Freed Sean_Hayes Kenny_Johar Plh +28012aaaa silvia Eric_Carlson Judy
Got date from IRC log name: 01 Dec 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/01-htmla-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]