Log: https://www.w3.org/2019/06/10-audio-description-irc
Nigel: There are two main issues to discuss.
Peter: I'm prepared to comment on both of the open issues.
Nigel: We also have to consider future meetings.
… AOB?
group: [no other business]
Nigel: Just to note I merged the open pull requests at the end of last week so what you see at
Nigel: incorporates all the previously open pull requests.
group: [happy with those merged changes]
Nigel: Any thoughts about this constraint?
Peter: I agree with Matt's comment - we don't see a user case today.
Chris: What about extended descriptions?
… The concept of more description than is permitted within the allotted time.
Nigel: The timestamps at the moment are based on media, so there would need to be some kind of directive that says
… "if the audio is too long for the time available, pause the media until the audio has finished"
… and that could be useful for TTS also where the duration is unknown.
Chris: Yes, I was more thinking of possible future requirements.
Nigel: Right, we did not include that as a requirement for this version.
Peter: Agree with that.
Chris: I agree with Matt's comment too, just trying to provide a tangible use case.
Peter: That makes good sense on an on-demand application where pausing the video wouldn't be an issue.
Nigel: We should open this issue and defer it to a future version.
Chris: That's a great idea, we should do that.
Nigel: It could be a player feature without a directive, e.g. for braille displays where the user acknowledges that they
… have finished reading before the media continues.
Chris: This would be great for educational uses too. Just thinking my way through it.
… There are a lot of times in educational programming where there's not enough room for the description to breathe
… and children for example would benefit from more robust descriptions.
… I'll raise this as an issue.
Nigel: Thank you.
… For the moment I'm seeing consensus to add the constraint for only one active leaf at a time.
… I'll go ahead and draft a pull request for that so we can review and merge it.
… Thank you!
… Any other comment on that issue?
group: [no more comments]
Nigel: This is about planning ahead.
Chris: I'm happy to defer - it seems to make sense from a future compatibility viewpoint.
Peter: Matt has raised an interesting example. I'm not a fan of automated translation or voicing but there is an obvious
… application there, which could be a good reference.
… I'm in agreement with Matt's comment - we should permit people to specify but not require them to do so.
Nigel: Thank you, that's pretty clear, I'll draft a pull request to add those too.
Nigel: The main point of having a future meeting would be if there is any more discussion needed.
… I can issue a call for consensus by email, so if everyone is happy with that then we don't need another meeting.
Chris: Works for me
Peter: Me too - as soon as we're happy that this is the standard to use we can go ahead with implementation.
Nigel: Okay, then I will prepare pull requests for the open issues, and assuming they get positive reviews and we
… merge them then I will send a CfC for taking it forward for Rec track advancement in TTWG.
… I don't think I'm aware of any IPR issues at the moment but I will need to check that with W3C Staff.
… The only other question I have is about the Authors section at the top - I think I should move that to the
… Acknowledgements section if that seems okay.
Peter: Sounds good to me
Chris: Yes
Nigel: Great, I'll go ahead with that.
Nigel: Thanks for joining, we've completed our agenda so I'll adjourn now. [adjourns meeting]