Meeting minutes
<Judy> [JB gives partial regrets as I continue to be held over in another meeting, hopefully can join soon]
RAUR: updates and issues.
<jasonjgw> https://
<jasonjgw> https://
<janina> jo: walks through them ...
https://
<janina> jo: issue 474 is for live meetings
WCAG Accessibility Guidelines - Accessing a "virtual" meeting using a teleconferencing application such as Zoom - generating accurate text content #474
o: issue has several points re deaf-blind, all interesting use cases
jo: Comes down to tracking who's speaking and meaning of words spoken being captured
jo: I saw it as punctuation
jo: Point is that punct can change meaning
jo: Believe RAUR handles first points well; punct is AI, not standards
jgw: Also comfortable no issue for RAUR
jgw: Believe reading rate was main issue with second one
jo: Still under 474
<joconnor> WCAG 3.0 accessibility guidelines: Accessing a "virtual" meeting using a teleconferencing application such as Zoom - receipt of streamed text content #476
jgw: referring to 476
<joconnor> https://
jgw: full transcript and summary captions -- reading rate for whomever
jgw: Notes debate in caption community how detailed captions should be
jgw: Didn't see RAUR refer to braille, though phps implied?
jo: Don't believe it's explicit
jo: But user need 5 should cover
jo: Isn't that a UA issue?
jgw: Wouldn't want to hold up pub over this
<joconnor> JS: It isn't the job of the standard to scale to an individuals reading rate
<joconnor> It is maybe a User agent requirement, and is covered in the MAUR
<joconnor> but in a live telecom situation, I dont think this is pertinant
<joconnor> In a different situation
<joconnor> A meeting doesn't go slower than the slowest person
jgw: Issue suggeted 15 wpm
<joconnor> Average speaking rate is 150-200
<joconnor> <discussion on braile speed reading variances>
<joconnor> JS: We can discuss these further, and should respond more deeply
<joconnor> But the goal is to ask CFC to run for publication.
<joconnor> JS: URIs to RAUR where in the RQTF wiki, and WAI CC page need to be updated.
<joconnor> Josh to check]
<joconnor> JW: I think there is more to discuss on this issue
<joconnor> We could publish the XAUR first
XAUR: updates and issues.
<joconnor> JS: I think we should discuss that
RAUR: updates and issues.
<joconnor> JOC: Should we delay publication and discuss this?
<joconnor> JS: I dont know what we can do.
<joconnor> JW: It could be handled by negotiation in a meeting.
<joconnor> JW: Arguabley not a software requirement
<joconnor> JS: A change to the RAUR for this?
<joconnor> JOC: I dont think so
<joconnor> JS: We can do the response another time.
<joconnor> Email: Comment: WCAG 3.0 - Issue: Accessibility to Web Content Requiring a CAPCHA for Access #475
<joconnor> JS: This is not relevant to the RAUR
<joconnor> JOC: We need a URI for the CFC for RAUR
<joconnor> JS: We could do a resolution here that does not provide the URI
<joconnor> JOC: Josh to get every ready for creating a CFC ready URI
draft RESOLUTION: RQTF requests APA issue a Call for Consensus on two documents to be published as W3C Notes, the RAUR and the XAUR
Resolution: RQTF requests APA issue a Call for Consensus on two documents to be published as W3C Notes, the RAUR and the XAUR.
Media synchronization research.
<joconnor> JW: Steve wanted to discuss, any follow up?
<joconnor> SN: I've been finding time to do more research
<joconnor> There is not so much research regarding synchronisation
<joconnor> You get some in gov depts and large productions
<joconnor> SN: On our team we have a member with a sign language translator, who works on the fly
<joconnor> I've found one interesting one from 2020
<joconnor> called 'an empirical study on relay etc'
<joconnor> they looked at international meetings, interpreted into oral language => sign etc
<joconnor> So teasing out the timing of these SL translations is tricky
<joconnor> There is less info that I'd like, there are natural factors that will delay this kind of interpretation
<joconnor> SL is not word for word
<joconnor> Natural latency
<joconnor> I need to capture that for our doc
<joconnor> <Other issues on speaking rate etc for captions discussed>.
<joconnor> Captions that are in sync are considered acceptable by the deaf community within a certain tolerance
<joconnor> <Steve discusses BBC study>
<joconnor> Where they varied speaking rate/captions
<joconnor> Fast captions ok for Top Gear, but not for Cooking programs
<joconnor> Interesting comparison
<joconnor> <Steve discusses studies where people who didn't sign as a first language>
<joconnor> In the literature, people who are native SL speakers, they dont have the same reading ability at the same rate
<joconnor> This is the use case for slowing things down
<joconnor> SN: I'll continue to look at this
<joconnor> Jason has mentioned sync with audio/video tracks.
<joconnor> Is this something that you want to look at?
<joconnor> JS: If there is research that demonstrates ability there.
<joconnor> The MAUR considers use cases where it matters that you dont block spoken dialog - and those where it doesn't
<joconnor> SN: Pre-recorded..
<joconnor> JS: Yes, different scenarios
<joconnor> JS: I've seen On Prime, where translations are done from various languages to sign
<joconnor> SN: also I've seen in broadway show, that the blind user may get the joke before e'one else
<joconnor> JB: That's terrible
<joconnor> <laughs all round>
<joconnor> JS: I've spent some time looking at Steves doc and think it is good.
<joconnor> We may not find a lot of research
<joconnor> Early vs late will still apply - lets tease this out and wrap it up.
<joconnor> SN: Ok
<joconnor> JS: Timed Text will find this useful, as well as Silver
<joconnor> JW: Sounds good
<joconnor> JW: Comments?
XAUR: updates and issues.
Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities update.
<joconnor> JS: This is delayed, short story
<joconnor> JS: I reviewed and there are some blockers for me.
<joconnor> JW: I found similar issues, where user needs are described in one place, with requirements in others and repetition
<joconnor> JS: EO had a similar comment
<joconnor> JW: I'd prefer something more conscise similar to RAUR/XAUR
<joconnor> JS: Some of this will get handled before CFC
<joconnor> A few things will change to make the doc better - not massive changes needed
<joconnor> JW: My colleague is reviewing
<joconnor> JS: It will move forward
<joconnor> JB: There are also other comments that have not been addressed
<joconnor> JW: The TF should just be aware there will be a CFC on this soon
XAUR: updates and issues.
Accessibility of remote meetings.
<joconnor> JW: We got Scotts update on the list
<joconnor> JB: Scott and I did discuss, he expressed a preference to take this off for a few weeks and work on it.
<joconnor> I let him know I had reservations on this
<joconnor> There has been multiple contributors.
<joconnor> My understanding is that he's bring it back to me, then we would bring it back to the group.
<joconnor> I'd like the comments to go to the RQTF list to remain transparent.
<joconnor> JB: I'll reply on list - great to have this offer of help
<joconnor> but the dialog needs to be within the group
<joconnor> JW: We will review Scotts work.
<joconnor> <kudos for Scotts work>
<joconnor> JW: We can find a home for things that aren't in the RAUR and put it in an appropriate deliverable