See also: IRC log
<janina> agenda: this
<janina> agenda CandidateGap Analysis: WebSRT; WMML, Controls, TTML, SMIL3, Etc.
<scribe> agenda: this
<janina> scribe: silvia
agenda CandidateGap Analysis: WebSRT; WMML, Controls, TTML, SMIL3, Etc.
zakim: take up item 1
<janina> So, we already have a scribe and can move on.
Open items:
action-52
JF on priority list -> still pending
<scribe> ACTION: 53 to http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/53 <- today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/25-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 53
re: action 54: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/54 <- today
janina: status update
… Michael and Silvia helped get Janina's and Judy's edits into the file
… into the requirements document
… a couple of things to highlight, that the group should look at and approve
<janina> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements
… at the very top, I added a couple of paragraphs to explain better what this document is about
<Judy> +1 on the title change
… I changed the title to "Media Accessibility User Requirements"
… trying to emphasize that these are user and not user agent requirements
… the introduction got a work-over, too
eric: I think those are both very necessary changes
+1 from me on both
janina: we hadn't define granularity level and anxilliary content in the content navigation section
… so I have added this
eric: I think that's a nice explanation of it
janina: I wanted to make sure it's understood that the navigation interrupts the sequential viewing of the content
… we need a way to get to them, to learn about them, and to get back to them later
eric: looks good
silvia: I think it's a fairly big introduction compared to other sections, but it's probably one of the least understood areas, so it's good to explain this properly
judy: I wanted to make a comment about the disability categorisation, which is section 1
… I wanted to make some changes to the learning disabilities description
<Judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/2009/disabilities
… I want to arrange it to be more in line with this document
… I am proposing update the learning disabilities description by midnight tonight
… but there will be continuing improvements to the doc
janina: should we declare it at the top as a living document?
judy: I want to particularly continually improve section 1 of this
silvia: I am happy for judy's edits to go in - and also to have it as a continuously evolving document as we come across more changes
janina: I was trying to do a top-to-bottom read and I have a couple of small things, but one big thing
… we use "audio description" for described audio
… the preferred way today is "video description", since it can come in all sorts of content types, e.g. text or audio
judy: I wouldn't want this to hold it back
<janina> described video
<Judy> [janina is saying "described video"]
… "described video" is the correct term now
silvia: happy to make the change
judy: if there are other simple edits, please let me know and I can make the changes by tonight
janina: this is I think my list before we can go towards group consensus
judy: proposal to approve as a finalized document of the group with the changes just discussed
resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community
… as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
janina: any objections?
corrected resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
Resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
resolved: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
<janina> scribenic?
<janina> scribe: silvia
Resolution: the group accepts the "Media Accessibility User Requirements" document as ready for release to the larger W3C community as of final copy edits midnight Boston tonight
<janina> +1
+1
<Judy> +1
<Eric_Carlson> +1
<Judy> and +1 from Sean
janina: we are looking for a place to host NCAM's examples to make them available to the larger group
… I know, Eric re-cast one of the demos
silvia: can we have the compositing assets from both examples
… if you could ask Geoff for that, janina, that would be helpful
eric: in particular the second one which is RealMedia would be nice to get as separate assets, because otherwise I cannot even look at it
nothing to discuss before we get John's summary document
judy: we should see if we can get proponents to introduce their respective specs
janina: this is to resume from the discussion last week
… some discussion happened on list
eric: we discussed whether an audio element should have a display of captions, since it doesn't have a visual presentation
judy: I thought we would look at Johns spreadsheet next week and have a quick look through other formats before we invite Ian to introduce WebSRT
janina: I'm curious to look at the formats now
… we have four candidates: TTML, SMIL3, WMML, and WebSRT
sean: are you talking about SMIL as a whole or just SMIL Text?
judy: just the restricted format
sean: SMIL has a text format called SMILText which can be used within SMIL and is like a captioning format
… it's a simple but different version to TTML
judy: can you present on that? 15-20 min is what I am thinking abou
sean: yes
silvia: today or next week?
judy: I am thinking of getting these presentations next week and the week after
sean: what is the purpose of these presentations?
janina: as a run through existing formats to see what they can offer to facilitate meeting the user requirements
… we need to identify to advantages and disadvantages of all the technologies, potentially even merge different capabilities of one into the other
eric: I wonder whether it really makes sense for us to recommend one format over another
sean: even if we come up with a representation, where will that go
… we can educate this group, but a recommendation is not up to us to make
eric: I agree and it would be a significant investment of our time to go through them all and understand them
sean: we could all educate ourselves outside this group, since a phone conference will not give us an in-depth understanding
judy: if we cannot recommend a format, we can at least give requirements matching information on the formats
… we do want to provide some input into the process of choosing a format
sean: I think this group should stay around to mediate the discussion in the wider group
… what I don't want to see happen is that this group provides a proposal
<Eric_Carlson> +1
plh: I understand why some people in this group do not want to recommend a format
<Judy> [so with video codec, it will be implementation-dependent because no agreement in the larger group]
… we now have the opportunity to make a recommendation on a baseline captioning format
janina: I don't think we will have the discussions together with the W3C HTML WG and we won't be shy to introduce our opinions and ideas
sean: I want to have the argument twice
(sorry: that was on the use of don't in janina's sentence)
judy: I am listening to Philippe's comments carefully because he has his eye on the overall process
… if we can get to some statement of guidance, because the larger WG doesn't quite have our insights yet
… so if we can get closer to a recommendation, that would probably be good
… maybe one way to do this would be to do the presentations that we were talking about, but to have a realistic set of expectations to surface some key questions
… something that we can capture against the requirements
… or do people have a proposal for a better way to proceed
… in order to capture better what we have done?
… so, Silvia presented on some parts before - was that useful?
eric: Silvia's presentation was useful, but we will not be able to get to the level of detail here that is really required to make a decision
<Judy> silvia: we need to get closer to people being able to make up their minds
<Judy> philippe: i don't have more suggestions at this time
silvia: I think it may be useful to educate the people in this group further and such for individuals to get closer to making up their mind, because it will be useful for the later discussion in the W3C HTML WG
… but I don't think we should recommend a format as a group
janina: we should be able to solve all our text-related requirements with one text format, right?
eric: I would go so far to say that a format the doesn't support all these needs isn't adequate
judy: it would be useful to also make such a statement as a group on the text-related format
janina: we have been told "you cannot even give us a captioning format"
judy: how the format options lign up again requirements is important for us to express
… so that formats can be evaluated objectively and openly
eric: that discussion will happen on the mailing list when the HTML WG will talk about a caption format and our user requirements will be a part of this discussion
judy: we have to lead how the larger group comes to a consensus
sean: wether we come to a consensus doesn't really matter, since what matter is what happens in the larger group
silvia: I agree not to recommend a format, but we could evaluate each format against the table that John is creating
sean: that's good homework to do
judy: so is such an evaluation to most useful thing we can do?
[broad agreement in the present group members]
… we will work through his matrix as soon as it is available
… so would we want the presentations after this then or dig straight into the evaluation?
sean: if we are going to do a presentation, then that should be around the matrix rather than an abstract introduction
janina: absolutely agree
sean: if we want to do the evaluation in the next 2 weeks, we better get that table real soon
judy: we might want to distribute the evaluation out to people
sean: I am happy to present TTML
… TTML is not SMIL
janina: will you do both then?
sean: not on the same day
judy: it would be good if Geoff could be present
janina: we will ask Ian to present on WebSRT
silvia: Ian would be the best to
present on WebSRT but I am sure Eric and I can together explain
it, too
... though we might get details wrong
we will have the presentations and evaluation in the next couple of weeks
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/group/W3C community/ Succeeded: s/implementation-independent/implementation-dependent/ Succeeded: s/don't// Found Scribe: silvia Inferring ScribeNick: silvia Found Scribe: silvia Inferring ScribeNick: silvia Default Present: Eric_Carlson, Janina, Sean_Hayes, silvia, Judy, Plh Present: Eric_Carlson Janina Sean_Hayes silvia Judy Plh Got date from IRC log name: 25 Aug 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/08/25-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: 53 WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]