Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference -- 27 Jan 2014

<trackbot> Date: 27 January 2014

<liza> Yes

<mgylling> karen, ok to scribe?

<tmichel> wHO IS 1.646.336.aabb ,

yes

<tmichel> IS ??P31 JeanKaplansky OR Karen_Myers ,

Markus: Let's get going

Julie: I'm at a 646 number

Markus: Thierry, if you can assign that to Julie
... Welcome everyone
... We have Karen scribing today

<scribe> Scribe: Karen

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: and registering regrets
... Short agenda for today
... As you know, we are running these focused themes with the task forces
... We don't have a new task force today because we have an urgent matter to cover annotations
... But on this call we'll decide what task force to review next week
... We have one person who has not yet made it to our calls
... Rich, can you say a few words?

Rich: I am CTO for Accessibility for IBM software

<Bill_Kasdorf> has Julie from BISG been introduced?

Rich: and chair the ARIA standards effort

Approval of previous meeting minutes

Markus: Last week's minutes are published
... any objections to accepting them?

Annotations TF: planning for publishing requirements as Note

Markus: there is work underway to propose the formation of a working track working group
... of the open annotations community group
... we are thinking to fast track the requirements so they can be used and referenced by the WG
... anything else, Rob, in terms of context?

Rob: in order to ensure all the requirements of the IG are met
... in the WG process
... would be great to have the usec cases if not entirely finished, at least be a lot more formalized than they are now

Markus: To do this, the first thing to keep in mind
... is that this is the process all the task forces will go through
... Use of the wiki is in the initial stage of the Task Force work
... we expect taht they will formalize in Note documents
... It looks like annotations task force will take the next steps in this sequence first
... but we want to clarify with the sequence first
... And hope Karen can help us
... basically I think there is the following steps
... let me throw them out here
... First is that we as an IG go over the wiki and fill in any blanks or missing areas that we can find
... Second step is that the task force produces a first version of the Note document
... and we abandon the wiki at that stage
... and likely use ReSpec JS to produce a Note
... at that point, it is the IG's first public draft
... and we accept comments both internally with W3C and on the mailing list within a period of time
... let's say it's one month
... And once the comment period is done and edits are done, we are ready to publish the Note
... i don't think it's much more complex than that

<azaroth> \me http://www.w3.org/respec/

Markus: Notes are not too high ranking in w3C space

Karen: we can review process document...just the time frame may need checking

Markus: We need to be done...
... does this sound feasible?

Rob: yes, that sounds good
... in terms of timing, we need to have something charterwise that can be discussed by 1 April
... meaning that the Note should be in a good state
... according to the IG
... about one month or three weeks before the annotations
... would go three weeks to write the note

Markus: are you ok with producing a version of the Note now
... in a week or so?

Rob: I can try for within a week

Markus: we spend time today looking at the wiki about we have and don't
... then have a one-week window for the IG to look at it further
... and then following week produce first draft version of the Note

Rob: my only concern with that
... is having @ in the Note referring to use cases that don't get agreed upon in the IG
... if Note lists all the use cases, that is easy

<tmichel> first draft version of the Note I guess is an editor's document ?

Rob: but if it's tracking down more references, that could be complicated

Markus: if everything goes well by next Monday, we should have IG's blessing for all or a subset?
... And that is your greenlight to produce a Note

Rob: if we can do it in that timeframe, that would be fantastic

Markus: yes, it might take longer, but we have been through it before
... I would be surprised to see a storm of complaints

Thierry: the first document we will produce is a first draft Editor's document
... and once IG is ok, we'll move it to a w3C Note
... and sooner or later we can republish that Note when we want to add changes there

Markus: right

s/Suzanne

Suzanne: there are accessibility implications for annotations

<Suzanne> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Mark_Highlighting

Suzanne: It would be good if Gerardo, others in accessibility task force had time to look over the annotations carefully
... with view about making annotations themselves accessible
... We are at a conference this week and would need more days next week

Markus: yes, maybe we should...

<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/UseCase_Directory#Social_Reading_and_Annotations

Markus: ask people to just navigate to this URL
... you jumped straight into what we have now
... What you referenced, Suzanne is the last use case

<gcapiel> I agree. Thanks Suzzane

Markus: Looking at the list, Rob, to give use bearing
... from CG perspective, how complete is this
... on a scale from one to 100

Rob: 95
... it pretty much covers what the CG has discussed
... one or two things which are part of the current specification
... that there were use cases for but they were very specific
... cannot think of anything that made them useful in publishing domain
... A few things not in CG such as packages use cases
... and recording the state of user manipulated resources is not covered
... that is far too complicated to come out

Markus: yes, I see a bunch that comes from discussions we have had here and within the EPUB WG
... the packaging of annotations as well as under other

<lizadaly> argh

Markus: specififying the target audience stem from EPUB work

Rob: huge jump slightly
... Suzanne, did you expect that accessibility of annotations is an accessibility use case, an annotations use case, or both

Suzanne: I worry...most important thing
... is that actual interface be accessible
... if we keep it only in accessibility it will be in a second releasea
... I would like to see it in the annotations work if possible

Gerardo: I totally agree
... accessibility was not thought through in first pass with [example Hypothes.is]
... description, post production

Markus: we got that you agree with Suzanne
... So is that an easy item for you to carry in here, Rob?

Rob: I am not at all versed in accessibility concerns, but happy to work with people who are
... I could not draft a first version of that requirement

Markus: right
... if we look at your collection right now, it is not talking about interface properties
... talking about the data itself, not the interface

Rob: one does touch on interface

<gcapiel> Sorry, on train. I was just saying that annotations are very applicable for post-production image description and description of other visual elements. Also, it seems that accessibility has been an afterthought with existing solutions.

Rob: maintaining interface style
... draw in white vs black
... place a pop-up at this point so as not to cover up useful text
... those are related to the user experience, if not related to the user interface

Suzanne: I would suggest that the accessibility task force read through and add small comments
... and then we add one additional use case which describes the recommended functionality
... or requirements
... we have an initial draft and could vet that and move over to annotations area

Markus: in terms of the accessibility task force review, what date can we set for you?
... Any chance you can do this by next Monday, or is that overly optimistic?

Gerardo: I can work on the plane

Rich: I would like to look at it, but have people in Austin this week
... so could not get to it until the weekend or early next week

Suzanne: I would have trouble getting to it by the 3rd; maybe the 5th

Markus: ok, that sounds good

<scribe> ACTION: Suzanne, Gerardo and Rich to complete accessibility review by 4 February [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-dpub-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'Suzanne,'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/track/users>.

<gcapiel> There's some discussion of this topic during an Accessibility Sprint which included Hypothes.is who has been involved in the annotations work http://kefletcher.blogspot.com/2013/06/born-digital-born-accessible-sprint.html?m=1

Bill: I put that on when Suzanne first commented
... there are also metadata implications for the annotations spec
... but our situation is the opposite of accessibility
... metadata should take into account the finished state
... rather than delay things
... metadata responds to use cases for implications

Rob: What do people think about scope of metadata?

Bill: you are involved intimately in both

Rob: Should metadata task force discuss annotations for metadata as well as publications, or both?

Markus: Bill?

Bill: waiting for others to respond
... I think there will be blurred lines there
... publications...whether regarding annotations or basic publication
... we can responsibly address them after the annotation issues are clarified
... we would not be driving annotations use cases, but some use cases could arise

Markus: ok, good
... in terms of timing
... by 5th the accessibility review is completed
... so we can target February 10
... which would be our first opportunity for IG blessing to have first draft for review
... and review is not only for accessibility folks
... please feel free to provide your input in the next week
... Rob, anything you want to alert the IG on when we read through this?
... weak areas, potential blind spots that you have been thinkign about?

Rob: I don't think so
... the later use cases are weaker than the earlier ones just due to use case fatigue
... any comments and suggestions are very welcome

Markus: the queue is empty
... if there are not more comments on annotations, we are ready to move onto the next agenda item
... I'm glad we have Gerardo and Suzanne here
... as the next item relates to accessibility
... and we have Rich here as well
... Rich, perhaps you can summarize

Rich: one of things we agreed to do is to create some modules off of ARIA to apply additional semantics to assistive technologies through browsers
... make structural semantics available through ARIA
... we would need to have some people from this IG part of that effort
... and coordinate with main WG and collaborate
... We would start with structural semantics
... we don't want to slow down the work others are doing
... Would be great if someone could volunteer to do the editing
... does that summarzie?

Markus: yes; what timeline?

Rich: Depends how fast we move and get things implemented
... you have done most of work, you have defined semantics
... main thing is to get out to browsers
... biggest thing is getting to CR
... we're looking for 1.1 by end of next eyar
... I don't know if we can do it in that time frame, but I'm willing to work with people to get that to happen
... I work with many assistive technology vendors

Gerardo: Some of this also came out
... from @
... when we had discussion with SVG WG
... graphs in SVG
... need for additional ARIA roles came up
... Rich and Doug Schepers know about it
... We are planning a call at EDUPUB2

Rich: We also agreed to form a module for graphics
... as long as that's not an issue

Gerardo: perfect

Markus: We have @ from ETS
... is that possible for 1.1?

@: we are full up

scribe: I would have to take that back to the working group
... were you thinking TI?

Markus: Mark Hakenen and you, Laura have been thinking

Laura: Mark has been working with you
... and will be talking about ARIA at EDUPUB

Markus: right

Laura: I don't know how far he has gotten with that

<gcapiel> To add to minutes, I'm referring to using ARIA roles to aid SVG sonification

Laura: or how ready he would be

Markus: we hope to clarify parts of that at EDUPUB2
... if I understand there are two modules agreed
... one for graphics and one for basic ebooks semantics
... your call for participation and editor is for both?
... or epub ones?

Rich: I want to meet with Doug and Gerardo at EDUPUB 2
... I'm chairing accessibility workshop

Markus: If anyone wants to sign up for this module, make yourself heard

<Suzanne> I will volunteer to participate

Markus: I plan to join but would love to have more people showing up
... Rich, anything else from TF meeting last week?

Rich: we're looking at test cases and the 2.0 timeline as well

Markus: seeing that we have a little extra time
... One of things that's going on, is that IDPF and epub is looking for a more native solution to express structural semantics
... as most of you know, we use the epub colon type attributes
... we are exploring options to move away from that, not name-space based, but something more native based to browser stack
... a couple solutions
... have been suggestions
... one from Robin Berjon, editor of HTML5

[@@]

scribe: another option is to make the rule attributes less @ centric and more generic
... Is that right Rich?

Rich: yes, as long as it does not break accessibility
... services...then I don't see an issue

Markus: this means there are two avenues to look into
... this IG is only partially involved here
... serving as a bridge to these discussions
... but sounds more like a discussion that needs to happen with HTML5 folks and the TF
... any more questions regarding PF and roles?
... great
... we'll see, Rich, how it goes with the call for participation
... we'll try perhaps to gather people to sign up for next week's call
... with a week to think about this

Rich: that's perfect [timeline]

Markus: final agenda item is the focus task force for next meeting
... I wrote to two of them
... I see some in a pretty early state
... such as metadata
... Bill, Brady, what do you think?

Bill: I would be happy to next week focus on metadata if group wants to do that
... Ivan will be on call next week; hope Madi would be as well
... It did just get started up
... if we devote next week's meeting, we should avoid getting into specifics, and focus on scope
... it's easy to get into the weeds in the metadata discussions
... what became immediately clear on wiki discussions
... is the importance of emphasizing the what rather than the how
... the mechanisms and solutions
... lots of details about metadata vocabularies

Brady: on the pagination side
... I don't remember agreeing to head this group
... I may have been nominated for it
... I am editing the wiki with behavioral adaptations
... but don't recall heading that group

Markus: that is right
... you took action to add DOM pagination
... I am to blame for elevating you to task force lead

<brady_duga> Sorry, deadzone

<brady_duga> I dropped

Markus: this is an important area
... even if we change the task force lead to someone else, we still need to get going

Bill: I am happy to have call focus on metadata
... we have a framework for discussion on the wiki
... but if next week is better used for @ I am happy to defer

Markus: I think we are good to go with metadata next week
... and Brady and I can sort things out on pagination

Brady: I will be adding some stuff to the wiki
... will be a strength to that section and I'll participate in that group
... On a side note
... adding something to wiki, we don't have reading system authors there

Markus: that is still open-ended
... if you find yourself in corner, feel free to add it

Brady: just add it and it appears?

Markus: yes
... I think we are settled and done for the day?
... Any other business?
... super
... please recall your review of the annotations collections warmly welcome
... Suzanne, Rich and Gerardo will do a dedicated review from an accessibility perspective

Rich: Are there any other aspects of annotation being included?
... I saw a mark
... are you referencing mark element in HTML5?

Markus: Maybe you are not aware of the open annotation CG
... you mentioned at the PF call

<azaroth> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/

<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/UseCase_Directory#Social_Reading_and_Annotations

Markus: Rob Sanderson from this group is co-chair of that
... and is working with W3C staff to propose a rec track version of open annotations
... and epub also working on integrating
... you may want to read in on that
... good opportunity for an inverted long desk

Rob: if there is anything I can do to help, shoot me an email; happy to do what I can

Rich: ok

Markus: any other questions?
... thank you for today
... thank you, Karen for scribing
... meeting adjourned

<azaroth> richardschwerdtfeger: (handle)42@gmail.com

- DRAFT -

Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

27 Jan 2014

Attendees

Contents

Approval of previous meeting minutes

Annotations TF: planning for publishing requirements as Note

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output