Pronunciation Task Force Teleconference

30 Oct 2019


Irfan, JF, paul_grenier, Dee, janina, SteveNoble, Roy_, Mark_Hakkinen
Irfan Ali


<scribe> scribe: JF

Task Force updates

Irfan: we need to get re-started. Any news?
... Mark H. will be meeting at Amazon to discuss speech pronunciation


Irfan: Explainer emerges from TPAC

<Roy_> https://github.com/w3c/pronunciation/blob/master/docs/explainer.md

JS: Hit a home-run with TAG - we had a limited amount of time, but Alice Boxhall joined in and agreed with our approach - we need something from HTML
... WHAT SG person at TPAC meetings agreed with use-cases - but needs an "Explainer" - which is what we have emerging now

use-cases, gap analysis, etc. won the day

Finishing the Explainer is next pressing task

Irfan: now is when we need to work on this

Sam: did a review, and wondering if, when we provide examples...

we have a simple example, but wondering if we can also illustrate something more complex - not as transparent as it could (should?) be

Sam: when reviewing, I tried to look at this through multiple lenses - we should illustrate how complex this *might* be

PG: we also have a weak-point with the JSON - not sure if it is parsable until it is tested. Might throw an error, but we don't specify what happens then
... we should call that out - there are some dependancies outside of the SSML (i.e. well formed JSON, etc.)

Sam: Feel we need to be honest and realistic on the complexities - given lack of authoring tools, etc.

PG: there is already a schema at Schema.org - as we build out a JSON schema, we need to be sure there is no conflicts between a new schema we build out and theirs

JF: I've worked with Schema.org folks in the past

PG: this all adds up to additional "Cons" for our Explainer document

MH: agree, we need to illustrate and discuss all concerns

<Irfan> jf: in the past, we were trying to get some stuff done with w3. we can add two schema.org and we can host new schema for us... schema.org are open to add or alternate the schema

<Irfan> jf: if we can leverage what schema.org offer that will help us to rolling the ball.

Irfan: we need to build it out first, then we can figure out where it lives

we're not even sure now if/what we need

PG: Currently SSML doesn't work on either (mainstream desktop) platform - for example Mac's prefer it's own scripting language

We sort of need to be picking sides - either we get Apple to conform, or we switch to JSON

Irfan: Apple is aware of our approach...

JS: we've been green-lighted: our approach is solid

MH: looking at github for Schema.org & pronunciation. Note comments from September

PG: ya, it died for a while...

MH: referencing this work and our explainer... this still needs to go to WHAT WG
... have there been any other comments?
... if by next week, if we bring in comments/changes and review next meeting?

Irfan: wondering if we can add... in Explainer can we note that a new Schema is required...

MH: we need to flesh it out more?

PG: can we frame it out with the reason that one OS supports, other doesn't, thus the JSON approach

MH: at least 2 vendors have indicated that consuming JSON is a light lift
... this is an important consideration as well
... any more feedback from survey?

Irfan: a few comments, but was also discussed at TPAC. But think the survey is now closed

MH: we should likely re-open it. MS for example suggested they may have a comment to submit.

suggest to re-open this, and advise that window for comments is still open

<Roy_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/110437/SurveyforAT/?login

[discussion to extend survey to end of December]

MH: Q - are we still happy with these questions?

JF: if we re-open, will need to drive traffic. Perhaps ATIA, send an note to AC lists

Do we need to add more questions? (If yes, we might need to issue a different or new survey, or at a minimum re-advise that the survey has been modified)

[discussion whether the survey is PW protected or public - 2 people needed to sign-in first]

<Roy_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/110437/SurveyforAT/

MH: just double-checked, it is public

If anyone has any final feedback, please respond ASAP, then we socialize the survey everywhere we can think of

Irfan: should we wait until next week?
... add to Explainer content...
... so we can wait until next week?

MH: Janina has the steps on how top present this to WHAT WG - be sure to flag/tag to their accessibility group as well

Technical Document

Irfan: we need to create this. We already have a template, but we should probably wait until after the Explainer doc is finalized

Does that make sense?

[no dissent]

Irfan: so will presume yes

gitHub Issue

We received a github issue a while back

<Roy_> https://github.com/w3c/pronunciation/issues/39

<Irfan> https://github.com/w3c/pronunciation/issues/39

<Roy_> https://github.com/w3c/pronunciation/issues/40

Comment suggests that we should not be calling our document use-cases, when we are also suggesting solutions

JF: These appear to be housekeeping comments

Roy: I can deal with these issues

documents working draft

Irfan: we've previously talked about timeline

FPWD is slated for 'end of February' - is that OK

Irfan: there is a potential WCAG 2.2 SC, and how it impacts on our timeline

JS: we are looking to give the industry a solution - something to point to

if we can get this solid before 2.2 goes to CR, then we have a solution for them to point to

<Irfan> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#recs-and-notes

<Roy_> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U9dm8rFsyPLu_LeSmdJRKdNdXmQ2nlUFcC7clUFglzw/edit#gid=0

JF: just because we publish a FPWD by end of Feb, doesn't make it stable enough for WCAG 2.2 referencing...

MH: is it easier to update techniques documents?

JF: updating Techniques is easier, because they are non-normative. But getting a new Technique into the AG WG, somebody needs to write it up, and it appears that AG WG is short on resources to do that

<mhakkinen> WCAG 2.0 3.1.6 . https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#meaning-pronunciation

<mhakkinen> I have to drop for another meeting

Irfan: should we none-the-less add milestones

Sam: agree to an internal milestone is a good idea (internally)

<Irfan> preset+ Mark_Hakkinen

<Dee> I have to drop now.

Irfan: will add some draft milestones for discussion next week

<Roy_> https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/10/30 15:01:52 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/sign-in first/sign-in first]/
Present: Irfan JF paul_grenier Dee janina SteveNoble Roy_ Mark_Hakkinen
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF
Found Date: 30 Oct 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]