– DRAFT –
Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Teleconference

<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://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/474

<jasonjgw> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/476

<janina> jo: walks through them ...

https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/474

<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://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/476

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