<trackbot> Date: 17 November 2014

<scribe> ScribeNick: ShaneM

Future call times

JS: Is this the best hour? or can we do something later in the day?

JF: It is a little early for me.
... what about 4 pm eastern?

JS: that would be fine

SM: fine with me too

RESOLUTION: Meeting will move to 4 PM Boston time.

JS: Any objection to meeting Monday, the 24th?
... feels like most groups will be meeting on Monday of that week.
... We might get the MAUR updated before the end of the year.
... future work could be on guidelines / techniques.

Comments

JS: Let's look at the new comments and see what we think
... my actions are not yet done about the comments we got right after publication.

<MarkS> 4PM works for me

JS: start with EOs comments and try to get them processed.

<janina> http://www.w3.org/2014/09/29-html-a11y-media-minutes.html

https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Media_Accessibility_User_Requirements#EOWG_Suggestions

EO comment 1: "clarify not comprehensive"

should make it clear that this section is just examples and is not comprehensive.

JS: we made an effort to be as comprehensive as we could be.

JF: yes but we have not managed to covered every use case.

JS: I don't want to stress it too much. We don't know of use cases we are missing. Do they?

JF: What about the title? I don't mind changing it.
... Summary implies we have done the work and captured as much as we could.

JS: I like Summary or Overview.

RESOLUTION: Change title to begin with "Summary of"

JF: what about adding a sentence at the beginning saying that stuff might be missing?

JS: I am not happy to put too much emphasis on things are missing here.
... if something is missing I would rather we were told about it and fix it.
... we have been out for public comment several times.

JF: do we have a disclaimer anywhere that says this section is draft?

JS: yes but we are removing that once we get the EO comments integrated.
... i object to saying examples. It implies we are not comprehensive. We are.

JF: I agree. We have covered this.

JS: I would rather say "tell us if there is something missing and we will put it in."

EO Comment 2: Deaf First

JF: This is rearranging deck chairs

JS: And it is not correct. In the broader community it is exactly the other way around. people are aware of captions. they are not familiar with described video.

JF: I agree

RESOLUTION: We will not make this change

EO Comment 3: Atypical color perception

JF: we could beef it up a little. we don't include any examples right now.
... I don't object to saying "(often called color blindness)"
... this is more a UAAG thing or a WCAG thing.

JS: couldn't we just point at those?

JF: I am not sure whether UAAG has actually considered scripted controls in media pages.

Nigel: if only because this section looks different than the others. We don't say how many in other sections.

JF: I agree

JS: A good point. We were trying to emphasize that it is a large group but we want all the things done.

PROPOSAL: Take out the percentage, the number, add the parenthetic clause

JF: In all the definitions there is no hyperlinking. But in this one there is. Why?

JS: I think we should do it when it is useful.

JF: in the section under low vision we point out problems via examples.

JS: That should have a WCAG reference. Maybe we should add cross references when there are WCAG techniques that would help.

JF: there are sections in WCAG that talk about color contrast / high contrast issues.
... nothing specific to color blindness. that condition is so variable
... there are 5 different kinds of color blindness.

PROPOSAL: get someone really familiar with WCAG to look through section 1 and find the places where we should link into WCAG or other w3c resources.

<JF> DRAFT: People with atypical color perception (often called "color blindness") may not be able to discriminate between different colors, or may miss key information when coded with color only, such as colors in media controls or text overlays.

SM: that looks good

<janina> Enter bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=PFWG&component=Media%20Accessibility%20User%20Requirements

<janina> Search bugs: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=PFWG&component=Media%20Accessibility%20User%20Requirements

JF: I think that the linkage to other documents is already there. 'cause they are in the checklist.

JS: Is that a little to general. Could we add a link from each section into the correct portion of the checklist?

JF: I guess we could. Feels like we are trying to boil the ocean here.

JS: We only have a dozen sections we need to cross-reference.

JF: There are actually closer to 30

JS: Let's think about it and look at it next Monday

JF: In section 1, for example, on blindness, there is not a pointer into UAAG or WCAG.

JS: Maybe in that section it is not necessary.

JF: There is a ton of relevant stuff.

JS: if there are not links from the checklist into WGAC/UAAG or they are too hard to find, then maybe we should put them into section 2 as a way to guide readers to the potential solutions more easily.
... Let's not try to resolve this today. Let's think about it for a week.

<scribe> ACTION: Janina to look into whether there is a good way to address the concern about linking the items in section 2 into other W3C Resources [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/17-html-a11y-media-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Look into whether there is a good way to address the concern about linking the items in section 2 into other w3c resources [on Janina Sajka - due 2014-11-24].

EO Comment 4: Cognitive and neurological disabilities

JS: We have a cognitivate task force now. We should get comments from them on section 2.8. Encourage them to keep it succinct
... I will bring it up with Lisa.

JF: I don't want this to extend beyond two weeks. I want this published.

JS: I will make sure this is understood.

RESOLUTION: We will ask the cognitive task force to clean up the language.

EO Item 5: Link to How People with Disabilities Use the Web

JS: We agree and have already done it.

EO Item 7: Categories

SM: put a prefix on the existing headings is fine

JF: ok

JS: works for me too

EO item number 6: Largely editorial

first paragraph: They have proposed new language.

JS: I agree - that's an improvement

JF: It's okay with me

SM: will the checklist continue to be separate?

JS: Not sure we have made that decision.

JF: My only concern is that the checklist, such that it is, is a wiki page. that means anyone can edit it.
... it is a good think and a bad thing.

JS: It can be locked down when we are DONE. 1.0 should remain 1.0.

JF: then maybe we need to take the wiki contents and publish it as a part of the note. as an appendix.

JS: I am fine with that.

<scribe> ACTION: Shane to find a way to get the wiki contents into an Appendix [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/17-html-a11y-media-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-289 - Find a way to get the wiki contents into an appendix [on Shane McCarron - due 2014-11-24].

and don't forget to put a note in the wiki pointing to the static version.

EO Comments: Options EOWG discussed

Group agrees to point to the diversity document.

JF: Do we need to respond to EO?

JS: yes.
... not until we are done disposing of their comments.

<JF> https://w3c.github.io/pfwg/media-accessibility-reqs

<JF> https://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:JFoliot/Issue194_Recap#Change_Proposals

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: ShaneM
Inferring Scribes: ShaneM
Default Present: nigel, JF, ShaneM, janina
Present: nigel JF ShaneM janina
Found Date: 17 Nov 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/17-html-a11y-media-minutes.html
People with action items: janina shane