21:34:02 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
21:34:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/04-html-a11y-irc
21:34:04 RRSAgent, make logs world
21:34:04 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
21:34:06 Zakim, this will be 2119
21:34:06 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago
21:34:07 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
21:34:07 Date: 04 May 2011
21:34:46 MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:34:55 Bob_Lund has joined #html-a11y
21:35:10 Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
21:35:11 Chair: John_Foliot
21:35:13 agenda: this
21:35:15 agenda+ Identify Scribe
21:35:16 agenda+ Next Steps on Multitrack: Listing Kinds/Types Actions Review
21:35:18 agenda+http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
21:35:19 agenda+ Other Business?
21:35:21 agenda+ be done
21:35:47 Sean has joined #html-a11y
21:35:52 zakim, who's on the phone
21:35:52 I don't understand 'who's on the phone', JF
21:36:02 mark has joined #html-a11y
21:40:00 is mikesmith really on this call?
21:41:22 meeting: WAI_PFWG(A11y)
21:44:11 trackbot, start telecon
21:44:11 zakim, start telcon
21:44:11 I don't understand 'start telcon', JF
21:44:13 RRSAgent, make logs world
21:44:15 Zakim, this will be 2119
21:44:15 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM scheduled to start 14 minutes ago
21:44:16 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
21:44:16 Date: 04 May 2011
21:44:41 zakim, who is on the phone?
21:44:41 WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM has not yet started, JF
21:44:43 On IRC I see mark, Sean, Bob_Lund, MikeSmith, Zakim, RRSAgent, silvia, JF, MichaelC_SJO, [tm], trackbot
21:45:06 Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
21:45:08 Chair: John_Foliot
21:45:09 zakim, this is 2119
21:45:09 ok, MichaelC_SJO; that matches WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM
21:45:09 agenda: this
21:45:11 agenda+ Identify Scribe
21:45:12 agenda+ Next Steps on Multitrack: Listing Kinds/Types Actions Review
21:45:14 agenda+http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
21:45:15 agenda+ Other Business?
21:45:17 agenda+ be done
21:45:24 thank you michael
21:45:33 now we have a double agenda
21:45:50 zakim, aadd is me
21:45:50 +silvia; got it
21:45:51 scribe: Sean
21:45:56 scribe: Sean
21:46:00 zakim, aaaa is mark
21:46:00 +mark; got it
21:46:04 thanks michael
21:46:14 zakim, next agendum
21:46:14 agendum 1. "Identify Scribe" taken up [from JF]
21:46:23 zakim, aacc is Sean
21:46:23 +Sean; got it
21:46:32 zakim, next agendum
21:46:32 agendum 1 was just opened, JF
21:46:43 zakim, clse agendum 1
21:46:43 I don't understand 'clse agendum 1', JF
21:46:51 zakim, close agendum 1
21:46:51 agendum 1, Identify Scribe, closed
21:46:52 I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:46:53 2. Next Steps on Multitrack: Listing Kinds/Types Actions Review [from JF]
21:46:59 zakim, next agendum
21:46:59 agendum 2. "Next Steps on Multitrack: Listing Kinds/Types Actions Review" taken up [from JF]
21:47:32 JF: can someone bring us up to speed
21:48:02 MW: Wiki page updated
21:48:18 the rmaining issue is about the track labelling
21:48:56 zakim, mute me
21:48:56 silvia should now be muted
21:49:06 some discussion on email, dived down into distinctions between add-on and alternatives
21:49:21 no conclusion
21:50:08 JF there was discussion about making the list in a 3rd party location
21:50:17 any more thoughts on that?
21:50:41 zakim, unmute me
21:50:41 silvia should no longer be muted
21:51:08 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Track_Kinds
21:51:17 SP: we shouldnt be overdoing it, its a bit of a detail
21:51:41 we should discuss the list
21:51:58 but the addition/replacement issue is somewhat orthogonal
21:52:22 and should probably not be solved in kind
21:52:51 should stay in the realm of what content the track contains
21:52:54 for now
21:53:27 MW: Should go through list on the wiki
21:54:12 JF: We are coming to a deadline, so we need to add something into the draft
21:54:46 can we generate a list to go into the spec
21:54:59 SP: Some already in (5 main ones)
21:55:21 main issue is additional types
21:55:34 and defining what they mean
21:55:42 we need to follow implementaiton
21:56:00 as we gain experience
21:56:11 the ocation of the list not a big issue
21:56:18 zakim, mute me
21:56:18 silvia should now be muted
21:56:29 MW: The wiki contains definitions
21:57:06 MW: when we work out an independant place, we can move them
21:57:45 JF: can we walk through them
21:58:17 MW: posted the link,
21:59:00 BL: Q. get kind function: suggests some kinds, some of which are text oriented, but no value of GetKind matches
21:59:26 MW: we are talking abot getKind on AV tracks, e.g. for burned in captions
21:59:38 text tracks are out of scope here
22:00:31 group from OGG for effects in different tracks
22:00:32 zakim, unmute me
22:00:32 silvia should no longer be muted
22:00:50 JF: would speech map to clear audio
22:01:05 SP: 2 ways to look at it, if its pure voice then yes
22:01:25 but Dave Singer says its the same as the main track but with different mix
22:01:36 both are viable approaches
22:01:50 dont know which clear audio is
22:02:23 SH: my understaning of clear audio as used in UK/BBC there it is a differently mixed but replacemnt track
22:02:35 no requirement for client side equipment to do the mixing
22:02:55 could be a pure speech track, and may in fact be derived from a 5.1 channel setup
22:03:04 as a seperately signalled audio stream
22:03:14 EC: That is my understaning as well
22:03:15 MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:03:41 in whch case alternate could be adequate
22:04:09 MW label can tell a human user which is which
22:04:41 issue is whether there multiple alternates and the machine can tell which track is which for user preferences
22:04:53 and then the label needs to be machine readable
22:05:23 JF: probably seems we need something which maps to clear audio
22:05:39 MW: The OGG expectation is that the client will mix them
22:05:56 Pure alternates is simpler, especially for audio
22:06:15 because mixing requires that the tracks are actually authored for that
22:06:37 JF: do we see browsers providing that kind of mixing
22:06:50 EC: We do it to the extent that the platform allows it
22:07:18 MW: I meant more about the track preparation
22:07:39 if the difference is just relative volume
22:07:57 its only going to work if the audio signals are precisely aligned
22:08:10 the content needs to be prepared with that in mind
22:08:25 if the intention is separate presentation, the tolerance is much less
22:08:34 EC: agree
22:08:46 its unlikely that audio will be prepared in that way
22:09:06 synced at the sample level, as it isnt going to always play well
22:09:23 JF: the 3 kinds can be dropped
22:09:35 MW: supplementary kind
22:09:42 from 3gpp
22:10:32 which indicates whther the audio or video is the most important, and is a hiint as to which is expendable
22:10:40 SP: That doesnt fit the kind attribute
22:11:02 EC: agree, its a characteristic; its different to kind
22:11:26 MW: its not alternate, video=main audio=supplementary
22:11:38 or for a concert the reverse
22:11:54 I agree the concept is not well defined and specific to adaptive streaming
22:12:10 SP: Some things need to be left to the website devloper
22:12:21 and the tools are there
22:12:27 to achieve this
22:12:53 custom controls can do this
22:13:08 and for adaptive streaming can look at the statistics
22:13:14 handle in JS
22:13:31 MW: Can agree this is not a kind, but for a different reason
22:13:42 MW: Will update Wiki
22:14:14 I see it more that is dealt with the media player, that uses these labels from the manifest and doesnt need to be handled by JS
22:14:20 but the outcome is the same
22:14:28 Next is commentary
22:14:35 intended for director commentary
22:14:42 zakim, mute me
22:14:42 silvia should now be muted
22:15:03 JF: alternative doesnt apply here, this is a +?
22:15:33 MW: the same issues apply here, you dont typically hear the main dialogue etc
22:15:46 its an either or
22:16:16 EC: the question is is it likely that there will ever be a track that has commentary that also needs an another type of kind too
22:16:46 JF: if the commentary is a separate track, it would need to have a text track equivalent
22:17:09 goes back to production
22:17:29 if its an either or, then there would be two transcripts one for each
22:17:46 if its a mixin audio, then we would need to mix texts
22:17:54 dont know how to handle that
22:18:05 MW: My understanding its completely separate
22:18:12 synced to the vide
22:18:24 there may be a switch track
22:18:39 so labelling the captions is an issue
22:18:56 JF: so could render two text files concurrently
22:19:01 zakim, unmute me
22:19:01 silvia should no longer be muted
22:19:15 MW: if the commentary is alternate, then the two captions should be alternates
22:19:25 SP: it would usually be an alternative
22:19:44 pre-mixed
22:19:57 in which case it would have its own subtitle track
22:20:08 and select that as an alternative
22:20:22 so marking as alternative is sufficent
22:20:47 MW: the issue is again whether you want to have user choice or UA selection
22:21:07 JF: if its kept generic and use the label, gives us room to explore
22:21:19 - +1.510.367.aabb
22:21:34 form ease of authoring for after market stuff it would be easier
22:21:52 alternative would be the powerful kind, and use label to slice and dice
22:22:09 MW: today we expose this label for our UI code to find this
22:22:37 in 3gpp and DASH there is no label for this so the UI can generate the labe
22:22:50 + +1.510.367.aaee
22:23:01 we should respnd that we need user readable labels
22:23:24 SP: kinds and the lable (internationalised) would say this is a commentary
22:23:50 prefer to keep the number of kinds small as possible
22:24:04 there is no way to put labels currently in DASH
22:24:09 just that its an alternate
22:24:24 2nd point - pros and cons, simple to have alternative
22:24:36 but the other option allows the scripts can do more with them
22:24:47 to apply preferences for example
22:25:02 zakim, aaee is Eric Carlson
22:25:02 I don't understand 'aaee is Eric Carlson', JF
22:25:16 zakim, aaee is Eric
22:25:16 +Eric; got it
22:25:29 JF: A machine readale type would be usable
22:25:42 EC: but that means people cant make up their own labels
22:26:07 MW: the issue is what level of granularity do we want for Machine readable
22:26:24 SP: alternate and accessibility are about it
22:26:38 no further kinds required
22:26:49 MW: that assumes a specific UI
22:27:10 to generate labels automatically for example
22:27:42 SP; what the browser interprets may be different
22:29:19 MW: if browser handles it, then it needs to handle i18n
22:29:55 SP: we need to look to implementaiton
22:30:15 MW: for what we do, the API is similar to the one being defined here
22:30:34 we expose the different kinds to the UI designer
22:30:51 SP: good to have experience in the design
22:31:10 JF: so need to continue the discussion, but lets looka the rest
22:31:25 MW: next 2 are captions and subtitles
22:31:31 in this context refer to burned in
22:32:56 MW: do we need to distinguish here
22:33:22 JF: the difference is somewhat academic, what counts is what goes to the screen
22:33:25 MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:33:48 SP: we could have a captions kind and use label to distinguish
22:33:56 JF: could work
22:34:30 JF: machine readable label
22:34:53 BL: on subtitle vs captions, there are FCC regulations that require captions but not subtitles
22:35:16 EC: that argues for them beign separate
22:35:39 MW: we could have a structure to kind
22:35:52 e.g getSubkind
22:36:01 or have the value embedded in the valu
22:36:15 some value in aligning with text tracks
22:36:35 EC: agree, doesnt make sense to define a hierachy.
22:36:56 lets keep it simple till we know we need it
22:37:02 MW: agree
22:37:18 avoids topolgy discussions
22:37:40 not enough types really for a hierarchy
22:38:01 so we will have both top level types
22:38:07 JF: need to file a bug
22:38:21 MW: will file a bug for all of the list together
22:38:32 next one is video mosaic
22:38:47 EC: seems unnecessary
22:38:52 not very common in the wild
22:39:02 JF: agree
22:39:07 not really accessible
22:39:32 BL: not an access feature, but is a common UI
22:39:43 could be constructed using separate elements
22:39:58 but that doesnt work too well in low bandwidth
22:40:28 MW: so the idea is its a singel video with all the videos in it
22:40:39 BL: yes thats how its authored
22:40:57 built from low bandwidth stream built automatically
22:41:27 EC: seems a special case that needs custom layout
22:41:48 for now I think its better off not to have an explicit way to mark it, and require custom code
22:41:55 MW: agree
22:42:15 SP: should be done in layout, as I understand it
22:42:39 as they are in reality separate tracks
22:42:46