18:58:28 RRSAgent has joined #audio 18:58:28 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-audio-irc 18:58:30 RRSAgent, make logs world 18:58:32 Zakim, this will be 28346 18:58:32 ok, trackbot; I see RWC_Audio()2:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 18:58:33 Meeting: Audio Working Group Teleconference 18:58:33 Date: 27 February 2012 18:58:36 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012JanMar/0287.html 18:58:45 Scribe: CWilson 18:59:07 Agenda+ partitioning/grouping the specs 18:59:09 agenda? 18:59:17 zakim, drop agendum 3 18:59:17 agendum 3, Spec Differences, dropped 18:59:32 hmm 19:02:24 chris has joined #audio 19:02:27 having trouble w bridge 19:02:36 joe, code is 28346 19:02:44 cwilso has joined #audio 19:02:48 I can't even get to the prompt for the code, my call gets dropped 19:02:57 logging in now, BRT 19:03:17 what is the pass code ? audio does not seem to work. 19:03:35 tmichel, code should be 28346 19:04:48 zakim, who is here? 19:04:48 apparently Team_(audio)19:03Z has ended, olivier 19:04:49 On IRC I see cwilso, chris, RRSAgent, joe, olivier, tmichel, Alistair, colinbdclark, foolip, Ronny, kinetik, kennyluck, trackbot, F1LT3R, paul___irish, shepazu, Zakim, jussi 19:04:54 zakim, this is audio 19:04:54 ok, olivier; that matches RWC_Audio()2:00PM 19:05:00 zakim, who is here? 19:05:00 On the phone I see ??P0, ??P7, ??P8, +1.650.253.aaaa, ??P10, ChrisWilson 19:05:02 On IRC I see cwilso, chris, RRSAgent, joe, olivier, tmichel, Alistair, colinbdclark, foolip, Ronny, kinetik, kennyluck, trackbot, F1LT3R, paul___irish, shepazu, Zakim, jussi 19:05:17 signal is more noisy now 19:05:27 +Joe 19:05:38 +??P13 19:05:44 that was probably me 19:05:50 scribe: cwilso 19:05:55 ScribeNick: cwilso 19:06:31 +Doug_Schepers 19:06:32 +??P15 19:06:35 agenda+: look at four areas of work, figure out which parts are serial and which are parallel 19:06:55 jernoble has joined #audio 19:07:09 agenda? 19:07:18 zakim, drop agendum 4 19:07:18 agendum 4, partitioning/grouping the specs, dropped 19:07:47 Zakim, who is talking? 19:08:00 cwilso, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P7 (29%) 19:08:07 zakim, who is here 19:08:07 jernoble, you need to end that query with '?' 19:08:09 zakim, ??P7 is me 19:08:09 +olivier; got it 19:08:10 zakim, who is here? 19:08:10 On the phone I see ??P0, olivier, ??P8, +1.650.253.aaaa, ??P10, ChrisWilson, Joe, ??P13, Doug_Schepers, ??P15 19:08:12 On IRC I see jernoble, cwilso, chris, RRSAgent, joe, olivier, tmichel, Alistair, colinbdclark, foolip, Ronny, kinetik, kennyluck, trackbot, F1LT3R, paul___irish, shepazu, Zakim, 19:08:12 ... jussi 19:08:21 zakim, ??P15 is me 19:08:21 +jernoble; got it 19:08:57 Olivier: we have these 4 areas to look at; we're thinking of rechartering, as we didn't incorporate events and MIDI into the original charter 19:09:28 …would like to hear from group where their priorities are, and what are connected together? 19:10:01 ChrisRogers: synthesis and processing are intertwining. MIDI is enough in its own section that it could be spun off. 19:10:48 Olivier: Chris, would you see capture and the sources are one & a whole with processing? Can capture be made into something else? 19:11:02 q+ 19:11:06 q? 19:12:05 ChrisRogers: WebRTC has an API to get user input; but there comes a point where that signal needs to be input into processing. To me, those are just sources - live input is just another type of source node. 19:12:11 ack shepazu 19:12:13 ack she 19:12:34 shepazu: I note that it's not just WebRTC TF looking at Media Capture; ot 19:12:45 s/ot/it's also part of Device APIs WG. 19:12:52 -??P0 19:13:08 Related -> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/FPWD.html 19:13:18 shepazu: do we want that TF to include us? Or are we satisfied with just providing use cases and requirements? If just the latter, we should do that soon. 19:13:48 olivier: related link is the TF's work in progress, published today. 19:14:09 shepazu: joined their call a couple of weeks ago, they're interested in knowing our use cases/req. 19:14:25 olivier: as editor of UC doc, I can coordinate. 19:15:07 AI: olivier to coordinate use cases with WebRTC TF. 19:15:29 shepazu: do we capture things like line in (from crogers) in our UCs? 19:16:03 olivier: beyond just gathering UC/reqs, we need to go through the WebRTC work and understand how it interfaces with our work. Looking for a volunteer. 19:16:51 crogers: I can give 2 use cases off the top of my head: 1) line input to process live instrument, like guitar. 2) recording inputs for DAW. 19:17:45 +[IPcaller] 19:17:54 crogers: you may also want to do more WebRTC-style UCs with processing, e.g. spatializing WebRTC participants [or do dynamics/clarity processing on them - cwilso] 19:18:09 shepazu: need to coordinate with TF more closely. 19:18:45 crogers: if we can get the input, e.g. from a media stream, we should be able to manipulate it effectively. 19:19:15 zakim, +[IPcaller] is Alistair 19:19:15 sorry, Alistair, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' 19:19:17 crogers: [suggests WebRTC needs to be able to select streams from hardware inputs?] 19:19:22 zakim, +IPcaller is Alistair 19:19:22 sorry, Alistair, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller' 19:19:27 zakim, IPcaller is Alistair 19:19:27 +Alistair; got it 19:20:02 q? 19:20:02 olivier: pretty sure WebRTC is looking at more complex scenarios including multiple input selection; but we should make it obvious that this is something we're interested in. 19:20:23 s/need to coordinate with TF more closely./if our scenarios and requirements match theirs, we need to coordinate with TF more closely; if not, we need to consider how we would cover it/ 19:21:23 olivier: think we're agreed 1) MIDI can be a separate item, and 2) we would expect to rely on WebRTC for getting inputs, although... 19:21:35 crogers: we need to do work to connect to our APIs then. 19:21:49 olivier: how fast do we want to be moving WRT MIDI? 19:22:20 q+ to respond 19:22:35 ack cw 19:22:35 cwilso, you wanted to respond 19:22:35 q+ 19:23:23 Cwilson: it would be good to recharter to get MIDI on it. Would be good to have a draft soon. May not be as controversial as the rest of our work because MIDI APIs are fairly standard already. 19:23:57 q+ 19:24:04 ack she 19:24:55 shepazu: I think it would be good to go ahead and let the MIDI work go at its own pace; if editors can put focus on it, great. I don't think it needs as much coordination as the other audio actions. 19:25:14 shepazu: should only need to dedicate small amount of telecon time, e.g., to it. 19:25:25 q+ 19:25:27 cwilso +1s what doug said. :) 19:25:34 ack Al 19:25:42 q 19:25:45 q+ 19:26:22 alistair: seconds what Doug said about timing. also, MIDI is also relevant to lighting (running DMX systems, etc.) - so it makes some sense to run somewhat separately. 19:27:10 olivier: cwilso, you said you'd like to see a draft charter on MIDI; pointing out the obvious, but we need leadership. Doug, how would you like that draft charter to happen? 19:27:12 q+ 19:27:31 ack me 19:27:33 ack joe 19:28:16 I would like to have a clearer idea of the impact of MIDI on our specs. 19:28:32 doug: we should agree as a group on what the MIDI API should cover in terms of scope, and then put the charter up for review. It doesn't need to be really rigorous, just cover scope. 19:28:40 q? 19:28:44 It will clearly change the scope but what about the deliverables 19:29:23 joe: seconds overall sense of starting MIDI track, but not investing loads of the collective group time. 19:29:30 q? 19:29:34 ack cw 19:29:55 CWilson: I drafted a couple of sentences a few months ago 19:30:01 … thought it would go into web events 19:30:14 … can dig that and share with the group 19:30:24 … and suggested that Jussi and I co-edit 19:30:36 … we can take it from there, 19:31:01 … there is a sense that it won't be a big time sink for the group, agree with that 19:31:35 doug: chris, if you can send the charter changes suggestion to the group, we can go from there. 19:31:47 q? 19:31:57 olivier: sounds like we have a couple of prospective editors to this. 19:32:06 AI: cwilso to send draft charter suggestion 19:32:20 RESOLUTION: the group will draft a new charter including MIDI work, we already have a couple of prospective editors 19:32:32 ACTION: CWilson to propose MIDI charter scope to the list 19:32:32 Sorry, couldn't find user - CWilson 19:32:49 ACTION: ChrisWilson to propose MIDI charter scope to the list 19:32:49 Created ACTION-33 - Propose MIDI charter scope to the list [on Chris Wilson - due 2012-03-05]. 19:33:38 olivier: seems clear that we would be splitting the charter into two main areas of work 19:34:04 Topic: Spec differences doc 19:35:01 Alistair: have been going through specs to look at differences between specs, hard because specs are both changing (e.g. worker threads - ROC's proposal is only worker threads, while CRoger's proposal is still looking at worker threads) 19:35:50 CRogers: it looked like ROC's worker threads portion could move into WA proposal directly, but Dmitry Lomov (worker expert at Google) had some commentary on the list. 19:36:06 CRogers: I'd expect longer term either proposal will have workers. 19:36:28 http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Spec_Differences 19:37:26 Alistair: 19:37:35 Alistair: reaching out to game devs. 19:38:11 Alistair: game devs very interested, but people are a bit daunted by reviewing/commenting on proposals. 19:38:27 CRogers: a few have commented - Rovio (Angry Birds), etc. 19:39:04 Alistair: maybe need to approach differently to get more directed feedback/commentary on the specs? 19:39:12 q+ 19:39:25 Alistair: also would like help on capturing spec differences and reaching out to game devs. 19:40:00 shepazu: more feedback from game developers would be great. Really want the feedback of where the spec is NOT meeting their needs, rather than where it is - on both proposals. 19:41:07 olivier: just wanted to say, BBC is starting a small project to try to implement a prototype using both APIs. Will have one set of requirements, same people try to implement it using both APIs to give feedback in a real use case. 19:41:34 olivier: would suggest similar feedback from others would be very helpful 19:41:43 ack olivier 19:41:57 alistair: what is the application? 19:42:10 olivier: not entirely certain, but will include synthesis and processing. 19:42:27 Jussi: know some details, but not sure if I can disclose 19:43:09 olivier: around the table - are there others actively using both APIs? 19:43:21 olivier: cwilso/crogers, you don't count. :) 19:43:53 joe has joined #audio 19:43:58 q+ 19:44:00 ?: we've been working on something. Initially developers are coming at this from scratch. 19:44:08 (Is that Alistair?) 19:44:13 thx 19:44:22 s/?:/Alistair:/ 19:44:39 q+ 19:44:52 alistair: initial feedback for the Mozilla API is that there was a bit of confusing when switching to media streams from audio data API. 19:45:00 s/confusing/confusion 19:45:42 q+ 19:45:47 alistair: the other side of things, the web audio API was confusing to people who haven't used Flash Audio API or some such API, but once it was up and running it was a little easier to use. 19:46:02 crogers: were you just using the JS processing side? 19:46:08 ack joe 19:46:10 alistair: mainly, but there was some processing too. 19:47:10 joe: we are working with the Web Audio API, and we;re using it in conjunction with sheet music playback - also looking at using a simple sequencer/synth to synthesize audio. so far going very well. Don't have the bandwidth to double up and do both APIs so far. 19:47:15 ack shep 19:47:30 q? 19:48:02 shepazu: can we capture this feedback in one place, to gather feedback for the group? 19:48:22 s/initial feedback for the Mozilla API is that there was a bit of confusing when switching to media streams from audio data API./initial feedback for the Mozilla API is that there was a bit of confusing when switching to media streams from audio data API although the mozilla api seemed quicker to get at the audio data. 19:48:54 q+ 19:49:02 shepazu: could we have one place where we present both APIs, with examples for both, and ask for feedback? We should be more systematic about collecting feedback on the two. 19:49:35 alistair: certain allure to having something flashy that builds on both to compare. 19:50:02 +1 on clarification on audio data api 19:50:17 shepazu: people still talk about the Mozilla API, and are talking about the audio data API. We should explicitly remove this as work that would go forward. We're not interesting in feedback on this, other than how it might relate to the other proposals. 19:50:51 shepazu: maybe the differences document should explicitly mention this, and say these are the reasons the audio data API is a dead end. 19:50:59 i'll arrange for that 19:51:17 alistair: the audio data spec should mention this as well. 19:51:44 ACTION: MGregan to make sure the Moz Audio Data API pages mentions the new work 19:51:44 Created ACTION-34 - Make sure the Moz Audio Data API pages mentions the new work [on Matthew Gregan - due 2012-03-05]. 19:51:57 q? 19:52:01 shepazu: maybe we should push people to evaluate the proposals via use cases. 19:52:08 ack me 19:52:28 q+ 19:53:00 olivier: a lot of people who have trouble with graphing tools have trouble grokking the web audio API. 19:53:25 alistair: issue with graph-based processing in general - it's difficult for non-engineers to grasp. 19:53:37 ack chris 19:53:40 crogers: 19:54:27 crogers: our developer relations have been trying to write FAQs/tutorials for the WA API. We've made some progress in this area. Boris Smus is writing another proposal, around games, that covers this. 19:54:40 http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webaudio/intro/ 19:55:42 crogers: one other group that we might be able to leverage is the upcoming games conference - the GDC - there will be a lot of discussion on audio APIs for the web, I expect. I think we'll hear a lot of developer feedback int he coming weeks. 19:55:56 olivier: is anyone from Google going to GDC? 19:56:01 crogers: yes, of course. 19:56:21 crogers: I'll reinforce to those going to ask devs to forward feedback to the group. 19:57:21 olivier: if we can get devs to go a bit further in each of the specs, I think that would be very valuable. We haven't had much detailed feedback yet. 19:57:50 ack jussi 19:57:51 ack jussi 19:58:18 nice 19:58:26 :) 19:58:48 jussi: we're working on Javascript codecs - e.g. MP3 - work on all three APIs. Will try to gather some feedback from my team. 19:59:14 olivier: thanks all. 19:59:27 AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!! 19:59:31 lol 19:59:35 :D 19:59:41 lmao 20:00:01 bye all 20:00:04 -Doug_Schepers 20:00:05 -olivier 20:00:06 - +1.650.253.aaaa 20:00:07 thanks and bye! 20:00:08 -Alistair 20:00:09 -??P8 20:00:10 zakim, make minutes 20:00:11 -Joe 20:00:11 I don't understand 'make minutes', cwilso 20:00:12 -??P10 20:00:12 rrsagent, make logs public 20:00:15 -jernoble 20:00:17 rrsagent, make minutes 20:00:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-audio-minutes.html olivier 20:00:21 ah, thanks. 20:00:23 zakim, bye 20:00:23 leaving. As of this point the attendees were +1.650.253.aaaa, Joe, ChrisWilson, Doug_Schepers, olivier, jernoble, Alistair 20:00:23 Zakim has left #audio 20:00:28 rrsagent, bye 20:00:28 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-audio-actions.rdf : 20:00:28 ACTION: CWilson to propose MIDI charter scope to the list [1] 20:00:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-audio-irc#T19-32-32 20:00:28 ACTION: ChrisWilson to propose MIDI charter scope to the list [2] 20:00:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-audio-irc#T19-32-49 20:00:28 ACTION: MGregan to make sure the Moz Audio Data API pages mentions the new work [3] 20:00:28 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-audio-irc#T19-51-44