<scribe> scribe: EricE
<scribe> scribenick: yatil
BB: Still working on the
agenda
... hope to have it Monday morning
https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_F2F_May_2019
scribe: Sharron added the
location, we’re in Fleck Hall again.
... 9am–4pm is probably when we have the rooms
<shawn> zakim who is on the phone?
scribe: Want to be flexible, so
we have the topics listed on the page but not slotted in
yet.
... Tentative breaks and lunch times.
... If you have not yet added your name to the list, please do
so. Helps us with breakfasts and breaks.
... You can also add topics, if you have ideas.
... feel free to add them to the list.
BB: Started talking about it last week, Shawn made some updates.
SLH: Hope everybody had a chance to review it…
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessible_Media_Resource#Requirements_Analysis
SLH: First thing I want to look
at is the updated req analysis.
... Only for us internally, planning.
... Tweaked. Hope close to calling it done.
... Any comments on the changed information?
... If ok with changes, please add +1.
BB: Are scenarios and tasks in order of importance?
SLH: Yes, previously in workflow
order, now in importance order.
... This leaves management tasks as a primary but lower
priority.
... The scenarios are not ordered.
... Only the tasks.
<rjolly> +1
<Lewis> +1
Laura: I’m a bit confused. Are
these different to the scenarios or tasks?
... Are they different from a video clip?
SLH: This is a resource for users
to make their videos accessible, not adding a video.
... This is just text based.
Chris: This is a great start.
SLH: Have some specific questions, so let's get together.
Jenn: I agree good start. Some
key things people asked me:
... If it is just a talking head, do I need an audio
description?
... Do I need audio alternative if I have captions?
... There are a lot of tools out there, a list of AI tools
might be helpful.
... Some guidance might be helpful there.
Chris: What about a logic trail? Similar what has been done for alternative texts?
<Jenn> +1 on a decision tree!
SLH: I have a draft of that.
BB: Laura asked about the
connection of a video but I wonder do we want to have an
example of a well done video that has everything?
... Do we want to have one on the site directly? Or just link
to perspectives?
SLH: Currently linking to the
captions perspective video. If people think there is a reason
for separate ones, we can think about it.
... Brent: Do you think a separate would be a good idea?
BB: I think it is a bonus for
introducing people to the other videos.
... Don’t want to show bad examples.
<Jenn> +1 on focusing on good examples.
<shawn> EE: Provided feedback in GitHub issue. In description of audio described audio described version - maybe example with and without.
<shawn> SLH: Could use ones we already have
EE: We could use parts of our exising videos as examples.
Daniel: I agree with Eric, we shouldn’t have bad examples. And we are developing more videos and we could keep it in mind to add specific aspects to the new videos.
Chris: We have a way to add
description called Integrated Described Video and we do
something like Eric described to demonstrate the
approach.
... The perspective videos leverage some of those same
principles
SLH: Important point, we need to look how stuff is written and what best practices we can add.
<Jenn> Thanks, Shawn. +1 regarding Integrated Described Video.
SLH: Any other things that people are looking for?
BB: Is this focused on doing it yourself, what do people need who use a vendor? What do they need to prepare?
[ EE: Good aspect, Brent. ]
[ EE: Send steps, Brent! ]
BB: We have a process that we have for what we need to prepare for Vendors.
SLH: Let’s look at what we need there and see if we want to include it.
BB: We do a lot of stuff over web
video, and we tell them to use a good microphone and things
like that. So a good headset and microphone.
... Don't know if helpful.
SLH: Definitively helpful, let’s
look at it and see how it or aspects can fit.
... Other questions?
<rjolly> yes, run with these additions and wrap it up!
<cobrien> IDV examplue URLs: DV version: https://youtu.be/fFK98qW2VOw; IDV verion: https://youtu.be/sYrsvFCsHZk
<rjolly> +1
<dmontalvo> +1
<Jenn> +1
<cobrien> +1
<Laura> +1
Proposed resolution: With the tweaks, can we call the requirements analysis as DONE?
<Lewis> +1
+1
<Brent> +1
[+1 Kris Anne]
[+1 Eric]
RESOLUTION: With the tweaks, call the requirements analysis DONE.
<shawn> https://deploy-preview-4--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media-guide/
SLH: It is a very early version, I’d like to get a feeling for overall reactions.
Chris: That’s a good starting point.
<rjolly> Agree with Chris - the structure of this seems great.
<Jenn> I like the What and Who structure to answer those key questions.
SLH: Anything big picture stuff missing, Chris?
Chris: I think I need to look at
it more closely, I certainly have feedback for Audio
Descriptions?
... Where would I find the decision tree?
SLH: Where would you search for it?
Chris: There could be specific trees for different aspects, one for captions, one for audio description,…
SLH: We have a general one on the managing page. And also one on the description page.
Chris: It’s often an issue when there's audio description and captions used at the same time. AD are usually not integrated into the captions but into the transcript.
<Jenn> I agree with Chris regarding specific formatting - if required for captions - should be part of the guidance
<Zakim> Brent, you wanted to say something on general order of pages
SLH: Good point.
BB: Can you talk about the order
of the pages? The order of description, captions and
transcript?
... When I go through WCAG it goes alternative version, then
captions and descriptions.
SLH: It’s not a fixed order yet…
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessible_Media_Resource#For_26_April_2019 Provided ideas for organization:
[EE: Agrees with Brent, I usually do it that way, too.]
<shawn> The intro page covers the elements in an order that newbies will likely understand, and need to address for existing audio and videos: captions, transcripts, audio description, sign language, video and audio content.
<shawn> The side navigation (and Creating Media Alternatives section) is in workflow order for new media: Managing Development of Media Alternatives and Meeting Standards, Creating Video and Audio Content, Creating Audio Description of Visual Information, Creating Captions, Creating Transcripts, Accessible Media Player.
SLH: On the intro page it has the
order you mentioned.
... In the main navigation, it is in workflow order.
BB: I didn’t think about that…
[EE: Not really obvious :-D]
<shawn> high-level descision tree https://deploy-preview-4--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media-guide/managing-standards/#what-does-my-videoaudio-need-to-be-accessible
BB: I was thinking about what
Chris was thinking, more about the decision tree. What do I
have to decide.
... If you have synchronized media you basically need to do all
of it…
... for AA.
... In see the value of a production order.
... need to think more about it.
SLH: I put in the high level
decision tree and an example workflow on the page.
... in the straw proposal
... question on where stuff goes is good.
... Big question: Where does it all fit?
... If you look at example workflow: Is it useful or not?
BB: I think Chris’ help would be excellent in this. People who start and who do it constantly struggle. Chris might have a good structure for this.
Chris: Absolutely.
... There’s a lot underneath the surface. People think
captioning is easy but it is a really deep topic. I presented
about it on CSUN, so I usually advice against doing it
yourself.
Chris: If you do it, you need to invest the time.
SLH: This section might cover it, we want to add some to it.
Laura: Agree with Brent & Chris. Someone who does it on a daily basis is essential for such a resource. I also agree that outsourcing is an important topic.
KrisAnne: If we create a resource
in the depth that it needs, it can be an eye-opening experience
for people saying “I need to find someone else.”
... It might be a good reminder for people who are doing
this.
<cobrien> +1
KrisAnne: Want to make sure people do it right.
SLH: Quite challenging to find the balance.
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say “producing accessible media” and to say pros vs. amateurs and to say podcasting
<Brent> Eric: If we say the best advice to give is that professional producers should be used because it can be overwhelming, then what do we do for those who simply cannot pay for it?
<Brent> Eric: That is a big challenge. We need to be sure we are addressing those who are creating semi professional resources.
<Zakim> Brent, you wanted to say one thing about purpose of the media (audience) - on topic
Jenn: Agree with Chris, the caption format is very specific and we need to point that out. Also the rise of self-serve caption providers. Having recommendations on what is needed to use them efficiently.
BB: In pearson, if we have a
meeting or a simple training session, we record it and make
sure it is captioned. It is a very informal way but we still
feel that it should be accessible to everyone in the
company.
... Maybe we can separate between the audience, for example if
it is only for internal vs. a professional public-facing
entity.
<cobrien> +1 with Shawn
SLH: I hear your idea, we had a
discussion about high-quality questions and how it is
inappropriate to have bad captions, we don’t want to have the
take-away that sub-par captions are ok
... need to be careful.
Chris: Obviously we want to say how ppl can do it semself and then advicing of using a professional vendor. How do we go about vendor neutrality?
SLH: Yes. We could list requirements.
Laura: For the players we seem to list two players, I don’t know if there are others, but it might be good to have them here as deciding on player is a big task.
SLH: We try not to recommend it
but to say ”those have been created for accessibility”. Need to
decide if we are comfortable with it. Might add “what you need
to look for”.
... It also is a maintanance issue.
... Need a specific discussion on that page as it has vendor
and maintanance issues.
<cobrien> Heni's
Laura: We found a matrix with a comparison from different vendors when we researched it.
SLH: Any more questions?
[ … crickets … ]
<shawn> https://deploy-preview-4--wai-media-guide.netlify.com/design-develop/media-guide/managing-standards/
SLH: Most questionable
page.
... at the moment.
Robert: I really like this page.
SLH: Does it look good, does it
not? Does the information belong to a different page?
... Robert: It was your idea in the first place! ;-)
<Jenn> I think the flow is close to people's thought process and really helps.
Robert: I generally like it and
there is that flow that breaks it up in an easy to grok
way.
... I think the structure in Managing Development of Media
Alternatives… Headings are good. We could poke at it all day,
but as a first draft looks good.
... I would point people to it.
... I like that as a consultant. this is the page I would point
them to.
<Brent> Eric: In general I like the page. Useful content.
<Brent> Eric: Looking at the navigation, not sure I like the title of the navigation for this page. It confused me a little.
<dmontalvo> +1 I also see this as an intro page. It sets up the requirements. it's a good picture.
<Brent> Eric: I think this is a great intro page, what needs to be done to make media accessible. Could be combined with the overview page maybe. Those who manage the process will most likely look in that overview.
Laura: I feel like the standards page should maybe stand on its own.
SLH: Still a big question on
where this page goes. I can see both perspectives. I can see it
from a managerial perspective. I would find the information on
its own page helpful. OTOH I can see people to say “do I need
captions?” and go there immediately.
... Q is where do we want to have it and where to link
from.
BB: I like all the considerations
that are listed and they are very beneficial. As a manager I
would not go into the how to do it sections but into the
considerations.
... Doing people would drill deeper.
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say ”Captions are only a small part of an accessible Video”
BB: Content could be more in depth.
<Brent> Eric: People may come to a subpage first. Need to have a quick short sentence letting the audience know there is more to accessible media than this one page.
SLH: Thanks for the input. Next steps: finalize req analysis. Add the questions and considerations we spoke today.
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessible_Media_Resource#Title
SLH: Any opinions on the title? Current draft has “How to make Audio and Video Accessible”.
<shawn> brainstorms welcome!
BB: My idea is: Is time-based media understandable… What about “Accessible Time-Based Media”?
<Laura> Creating and delivering accessible audio and video content - I know this is long but I thought I'd throw it out there
<Jenn> "Time-based media" is jargon, but can be easily explained... but always needs to be translated. :)
<Howard> Think I would lean to Shawn's title or at least avoid the jargon.
KrisAnne: I don’t like jargon… I guess people will not search for time-based media. I think from a SEO perspective. So I prefer “how to make audio an video accessible”
<Jenn> +1 for Laura's suggestion
<Laura> +1 to Krisanne
KrisAnne: plain language and easy to find.
<Jenn> +1 for Krisanne
<Lewis> +1 to Krisanne
<Howard> +1 to Krisanne
<Jenn> Jargon be gone! That was terrible. :)
Daniel: I agree, time-based media is not easy to understand.
<Brent> I like KrisAnne's idea of thinking, "what words would they put in a google search field?" That is what we should try and use.
<Brent> Eric: Audio and video are understandable. A very simple title could be "Audio & Vidio".
<Brent> Eric: I like front loading audio and video.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask Audio & Video vs. Video & Audio
SLH: I personally think Audio & Video flows well. Any real quick comments on this?
<Howard> I lean towards "audio and video."
<Laura> +1 to audio and video
Lewis: My thought is that people
look more often for Video.
... so it might be good to promote it.
<Jenn> +1 to audio and video
SLH: I agree with both points. That’s the issue :-D
<shawn> "...Video Accessible" better for SEO?
SLH: Video and Accesible more together better for SEO?
Lewis: We need Time-Based Media
in the content.
... we could also add it in the metadata.
<Lewis> I know, it was just a way to fit it in without forcing into the content
SLH: I looked at all the comments and there seems to be a difference between what WCAG calls them and what we call them.
<Brent> Eric: Wonder if there need to be two distinct resources. Audio alone, then one with Video and Audio (synchronized). Would it make it less complicated if we separated them some way?
<Howard> q Howard
Daniel: I see this audio and video thing as building blocks. For the video you need to take audio into consideration. So I am in favor of saying Audio & Video, sounds better for me.
Howard: I don't like the idea of splitting up audio and video… Feels a little bit unnatural…
[ EE: I don’t _like_ the idea either, but maybe it could simplify it. :-D ]
SLH: Other ideas?
... On one hand I think they work well together, but the idea
of a podcaster…
... How can we surface what they need?
... So they are not overwhelmed by stuff they don’t need?
<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say how he teaches it
<inserted> [ EE: FYI, Here’s how I teach it, usually I start with Audio and requirements and then to Video, so that order makes most sense to me. ]
http://cos.accessibility.rocks/cos17/audio-video/
Laura: My title idea: ”Creating and delivering accessible audio and video content”
SLH: I take the feedback and come back with alternative versions for feedback. Feel free to send additional thoughts my way.
BB: We’ll send out W4TW and maybe
a survey out, will also send a reminder about the F2F. Any
other business?
... Thank you all, thanks for the feedback. Talk to you next
week!
trackbot, end meeting