00:04:41 nigel has joined #tt 00:56:49 nigel has joined #tt 01:01:17 nigel has joined #tt 01:03:29 nigel has joined #tt 01:11:13 nigel_ has joined #tt 14:57:51 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:57:51 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-tt-irc 14:57:54 nigel has joined #tt 14:57:54 Zakim has joined #tt 14:58:04 rrsagent, make log public 15:01:53 present+ pal 15:04:39 atai has joined #tt 15:05:01 present+ 15:06:33 nigel has joined #tt 15:07:15 present+ 15:07:24 nigel has changed the topic to: Current TTWG call 2022-09-16 0800-1330 Vancouver, https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/aa49e35a-f503-473b-8bf6-323e10ca6a3f with agenda at https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/227 15:07:35 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/227 15:07:41 Present: Atsushi, Andreas, Gary, Cyril, Nigel 15:07:57 present+ 15:08:07 meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference (TPAC 2022 Friday) 15:08:17 Present+ Pierre 15:08:19 previous minutes: https://www.w3.org/2022/09/15-tt-minutes.html 15:08:28 zakim, who is on the call 15:08:28 I don't understand 'who is on the call', nigel 15:08:30 rrsagent, publish minutes 15:08:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-tt-minutes.html atsushi 15:09:00 cyril has joined #tt 15:09:04 Zakim: who is here? 15:09:20 s/previous minutes/previous meeting/ 15:09:21 rrsagent, publish minutes 15:09:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-tt-minutes.html atsushi 15:09:21 present? 15:09:34 Chair: Gary, Nigel 15:09:38 absent? 15:10:06 Topic: This meeting 15:10:23 Nigel: Scribe volunteer? 15:10:51 Zakim, who is here? 15:10:51 Present: Atsushi, Andreas, Gary, Cyril, Nigel, pal, Pierre 15:10:53 On IRC I see cyril, nigel, atai, Zakim, RRSAgent, atsushi, pal, github-bot, Mike5, slightlyoff, gkatsev 15:11:05 present- pal 15:11:08 s/Zakim: who is here?// 15:11:15 Zakim, why are you so complicated? 15:11:15 I don't understand your question, cyril. 15:11:37 scribe+ 15:12:06 nigel: we have a swiss cheese agenda, with lots of gaps 15:12:21 ... some useful stuff that we could keep doing, e.g. TTML2 issues 15:12:26 ... some DAPT as well 15:12:40 ... recaps of joint with APA 15:12:53 ... placeholder for a discussion on workshop that's too long 15:13:32 ... with have a hard point for rechartering with PLH 15:13:51 ... then unplanned slot 15:13:55 ... then joint with Media WG 15:14:29 ... 2 topics: behavior with controls, video and shadow DOM 15:14:41 ... and then AD + WebVTT 15:14:58 ... we should be flexible with unplanned 15:15:01 ... any AOB? 15:15:29 pal: if time permits and is convenient, we could discuss the potential modification to the HRM for short gaps 15:15:46 ... I have a pending PR, it's simple and easy to explain 15:19:56 (nigel teaching us markdown tricks) 15:21:15 Topic: Future workshops 15:21:36 nigel: this was something Pierrre suggested when we were wondering about this meeting 15:22:03 ... inviting the wide community 15:22:26 ... I don't know if it should virtually 15:22:32 ... maybe for a couple of hours 15:22:44 ... does that make sense? would it be useful? 15:22:53 ... Pierre can you remind me? 15:23:03 pal: the context of the discussion was TPAC 15:23:15 ... make in-person meetings worth it, or add value 15:23:34 ... not only do the admin stuff but have event that can only happen when people are in person 15:23:44 ... interactive discussions, offline discussions 15:24:10 ... the other ingredient is that we are a small group here but represents a larger community 15:24:30 ... it would be great to get broader input from the community to get where WebVTT and TTML are going 15:24:38 ... the answer is we don't know 15:24:55 ... I had a request to convert WebVTT to STL and it was hard to understand the need 15:25:09 ... a simple workshop with key users on the web 15:25:15 q+ 15:25:26 ... implementation experience 15:25:45 q+ 15:25:46 gkatsev: like Kim dropping by yesterday 15:25:58 pal: definitely broader community, like FOMS 15:26:18 ... people coming to give their experiences and issues facing 15:26:28 gkatsev: I'm on board 15:26:42 ... by people who use the output of the specs 15:26:54 ... we're so embedded in it that we may lose sight 15:26:59 ... FOMS is always great 15:27:05 ... but limited user community 15:27:15 pal: are you going? 15:27:17 gkatsev: yes 15:27:31 scribe+ 15:27:38 cyril: I agree with what's been said. 15:27:44 .. Great idea to have a physical workshop if we can. 15:27:51 .. Not sure people would travel for just 2 hours. 15:28:05 .. We could have people pitch, like Kim did yesterday, products, or how they use it. 15:28:12 .. We don't know what products exist. 15:28:23 Pierre: Our discussion was literally in the context of TPAC. 15:28:34 Cyril: Should we wait a year, or do something in between? 15:28:44 Pierre: There are a couple of other events we could consider. 15:28:56 .. FOMS and Demuxed are close and have an agenda. 15:29:05 .. There are other events where there will be a critical mass of users. 15:29:23 Gary: At FOMS there will be captions discussions so if we're there it would be useful. 15:29:26 scribe+ 15:29:27 q? 15:29:31 ack cyril 15:29:34 atai: will it be online? 15:29:38 gkatsev: no 15:29:48 ... it's unconference style 15:30:00 ... and it's complicated to have that online 15:30:06 ack atsushi 15:30:08 ... also why it's not be around in the past years 15:30:08 ack atai 15:30:30 atai: if the interest is to engage the broader community, we could expand the topics beyond WebVTT and TTML 15:30:39 -> https://foms-workshop.org/foms2022/ FOMS 2022 Foundations of Open Media Standards and Software 15:30:42 ... we had a conference years ago at IRT 15:31:22 ... there is a lot of things to discuss around subtitles and captions 15:31:41 ... we should not expect an opinion on where the formats would go 15:31:53 ... most people want to share their problems, ideas ... 15:32:01 ... this would be a useful event 15:32:06 ... no idea who could organize it 15:32:09 q+ to mention EBU work on challenges with subtitles 15:32:21 Cyril: I don't disagree it could be a great event. 15:32:37 .. What do you think about participants coming to TTWG meetings. Could that be useful? 15:32:47 .. Participants would share with us, not each other. They would get more context. 15:33:02 Gary: I agree that could be incredibly useful. Doesn't have to be one or the other, can do both. 15:33:04 Cyril: Yes 15:33:09 ack nigel 15:33:09 nigel, you wanted to mention EBU work on challenges with subtitles 15:33:09 q+ 15:33:28 nigel: there is some work in EBU TT group driven by public service broadcaster in particular 15:33:41 ... to gather together the challenges around subtitling that people face 15:33:52 ... that work is on going 15:34:06 ... when it is published it could be a good opportunity to gather people 15:34:29 ... EBU has facilities 15:34:37 ... it fits with their role quite well 15:34:47 ... a commercially safe space 15:35:00 ... if we invite people and start talking about IPR 15:35:11 ... that'd be awkward 15:35:23 ... it might be clearer in a community group than a WG 15:35:38 ... or an interest group (MEIG) or the TT CG 15:36:08 ... a WG meeting could be co-located 15:36:14 ... EBU is no longer a member of W3C 15:36:22 ... but that shouldn't stop us 15:36:34 q? 15:36:34 atai: good idea with EBU 15:36:36 ack atai 15:36:46 ... to disseminate our work and get feedback 15:37:04 ... we need an event that is more than a dry spec presentation 15:37:30 q+ to ask is this basically a requirements gathering activity? 15:37:35 ... say EBU and W3C organize 1 or 2 days with introductions of standards, given by the people behind it 15:37:41 ... but also free discussions 15:37:58 ... but also topics interesting for people, e.g. AI captions 15:38:17 Cyril: We need to see broader than captions and subtitles. 15:38:27 .. There are other uses - scripts in general, not just dubbing and AD 15:38:40 .. We should maybe not even mention subtitle and caption in the title! 15:38:42 q+ 15:38:54 .. Maybe some "Timed Text community", though TT may be too vague. 15:39:07 .. We should be clearer that it's not just about standards, but a forum to talk. 15:39:15 .. Should leave plenty of space for presentation. 15:39:34 .. Programme committee - intent to speak, be selective if necessary. 15:39:40 .. Let's see where it takes us. 15:39:45 q? 15:39:51 ack gkatsev 15:39:52 gkatsev, you wanted to ask is this basically a requirements gathering activity? 15:40:18 gkatsev: to be very concrete, we need requirement gathering for what the TTWG can work on next 15:40:27 ... maybe that can guide us 15:40:54 ... in 2017, NYC had a Hypertext 2d conf/hackathon/workshop ... 15:41:16 ... Microsoft was there 15:41:31 ... that might be a good blueprint 15:41:37 ... I'll find a link 15:41:39 q+ 15:41:44 ack atai 15:41:48 atai: that's a good idea 15:42:11 ... one advantage I saw in the event we had years ago was the focus on tech, for engineers 15:42:28 ... there are lots of conf that look at it from the business or editorial side 15:42:35 ... but the audience is not technical 15:42:58 ... for this event, we should make clear that it it's like Demuxed for Text 15:43:01 cyril: DeText 15:43:17 atai: scope should be a bit limited 15:43:21 -> https://pietropassarelli.gitbooks.io/textav/content/ textAV 2017 WG around online audio and video 15:43:22 ... AV translation 15:43:39 q? 15:44:34 ack cyr 15:44:35 cyril: should we have demo booth? or is it too much of IBC? 15:44:46 atai: booths are good 15:44:51 ... 3 or 4 in the IRT event 15:45:07 ... showing European Projects because they have obligations to disseminate 15:45:15 ... it's in the advantage of every one 15:45:29 q+ to summarise 15:45:48 Cyril: We should not be asking people what they want to do. 15:45:59 .. We should tell us their problems and what they're doing. 15:46:12 .. Then we should assess. We may solve some of the problems and not others. 15:46:20 .. We should not impose on them to understand what we're doing 15:46:37 .. How do we progress on this? 15:46:42 .. Decide on dates, locations etc 15:46:51 Pierre: My experience is first pick a candidate location, 15:47:03 .. then start pinging folks that we think would be interested, check the location might work for them, 15:47:08 .. then broaden the tent. 15:47:24 Cyril: One candidate location is Geneva with EBU. Nigel should you ask them? 15:47:28 Nigel: [nods] 15:47:53 Pierre: Multiple centres of gravity for TT work: US West coast, Europe, Japan/China/Korea. 15:48:11 .. Need to fix some place that is easy for people to get to or that they will already be there for some 15:48:13 .. other reasosn. 15:48:20 s/osn/on 15:48:29 Cyril: Around NAB? Already too loaded? 15:48:45 Pierre: Could work, doesn't have to be in Las Vegas or at the same time, could be a bookend on either side. 15:49:03 Andreas: Need to think who would be there. We know some potential candidates, to present. 15:49:09 .. And we know others in the community. 15:49:27 .. It's a problem that this kind of conference might not be enough to get approval to travel 15:49:33 .. from e.g. Europe to US West Coast. 15:49:43 Pierre: Yes, same in reverse direction. 15:49:59 Andreas: We could get some people by e.g. putting it with an IMF user meetup. 15:50:09 .. Either way, colocating with another event in the region would be helpful. 15:50:32 Pierre: What really comes to mind is around NAB for the audience and target location, not necessarily 15:50:38 .. Las Vegas, but in the general vicinity. 15:50:56 .. If we start planning now, we could, like FOMS and Demuxed being back to back nearish each other, 15:51:09 .. we could try to get other media-related events to be in the same vicinity. 15:51:24 .. If it's 1 day for X and 1 day for TT it's easy for people to stay an extra day. 15:51:34 q? 15:51:47 Cyril: It's a bit too early but if we do this multiple times we would have to rotate locations. 15:52:07 Pierre: IBC is the other really good one, especially next year if folks in Asia can start travelling, 15:52:13 .. and travel problems are resolved. 15:52:19 q+ 15:52:27 Cyril: Good idea to do NAB and IBC, learn mistakes on the first one! 15:52:43 Pierre: If we're trying for instance to get folks from the Facebooks and Googles of the world then 15:52:57 .. we could do it in California. It's easy to get there from Las Vegas - you can even drive. 15:53:18 Cyril: I'm going to propose that we tentatiively organise it around NAB, lock dates and then work based on that. 15:53:20 q? 15:53:29 ack atai 15:53:47 Andreas: Like Cyril, I agree decide on one location, then one or two people to figure out specifics 15:54:07 .. like location, other events. Need to do it quickly, April is not too far away, need a clear picture in November. 15:54:21 .. In general it would be possible to have options to mix the US and Europe communities, which is 15:54:33 .. often missing, and not so good. 15:54:49 .. I'd rotate on an annual basis, NAB 2023, IBC 2024 for example. 15:55:03 q? 15:55:05 ack n 15:55:05 nigel, you wanted to summarise 15:56:31 Cyril: I will talk to colleagues and probe the idea and see what they think. 15:57:42 Nigel: I think what I've heard is that we agree there's some kind of gap in terms of knowledge, community, 15:58:00 .. user needs etc. and we want to fill that, better to prioritise our future work. 15:58:29 .. And that there is no existing forum that we're all snubbing that fulfils this need. 15:58:44 .. There are related ones like FOMS, Languages and the Media, etc but they're less focused on 15:58:48 .. implementation issues. 15:59:14 Pierre: That is the key question - we think other events are either too broad or too focused but that's the 15:59:24 .. first question I would ask folks that we target. 15:59:30 Nigel: Yes, makes sense. 15:59:52 Gary: I think FOMS is the right focus/fit but the main issue is that the attendance is fairly limited. 16:00:08 .. It will be incredibly valuable but for this workshop we probably want an additional much wider audience. 16:00:25 Pierre: If we find enough energy in this group we should probably raise it in FOMS. 16:00:38 Gary: We can just mention it, and ask for feedback and interest. 16:00:57 Nigel: So the view is that it would be good to set up an event. 16:01:17 .. In terms of actions, there's one on me to ask the EBU about it, but noting that the location may not 16:01:25 .. be great if we were to do it in Geneva. 16:01:59 .. Any other actions? Volunteers for next steps? 16:02:22 Andreas: Proposal is to check if NAB in LV would work I would suggest that Cyril, Gary and Pierre check 16:02:27 .. what is possible there. 16:02:40 Pierre: What would really help is if we could start a shared doc where we can capture the 16:02:49 .. individuals and companies that we would like to see present. 16:02:56 .. If we could start that it would really help. 16:03:00 Andreas: Good idea 16:03:16 Pierre: All of us know folks, I'm fairly certain others know folk I don't. 16:03:54 Nigel: Sounds like something we share non-publicly at least at first. 16:04:15 .. I'm sure I can create such a thing to get us started, I'd need input from everyone else of course. 16:04:31 .. Any more thoughts on this before we take a break? 16:04:48 No 16:05:10 Topic: Break until 30 minutes past the hour 16:19:28 atai has joined #tt 16:33:21 Topic: Recap and follow-up from previous day's meetings 16:33:24 cpn has joined #tt 16:35:22 scribe+ atai 16:35:35 Yesterday we had three calls 16:35:46 Joined meeting with MEIG 16:36:00 another meeting about DAPT and TTML2 issues 16:36:18 I would like to come back to the issues we had yesteday 16:36:48 I confirmed for me yesterday that we can do the registry track 16:37:07 in the afternoon we met with APA 16:37:25 they were interested in synchronisation requirements 16:37:38 there were good minutes hope you will find them 16:37:51 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/saur/ SAUR 16:38:04 This is the spec about the requirements 16:38:23 Their goal is to make it into a REC that could be referenced 16:38:28 as normative 16:38:38 They could make it a statement 16:38:58 It was not really clear how normative statements could be made 16:39:13 this was discussed 16:39:25 It needs to be testable for implementations 16:39:45 APA think that the scope of a technical implementation 16:39:52 and not a service requirements 16:40:16 e.g. demanding that service providers stay in certain sync 16:41:27 it is not clear how you could that 16:41:32 it is very complex 16:41:44 it isn't possibly the only way to get there 16:41:56 there maybe other options 16:42:04 they will think about it 16:42:50 s/Yesterday/Nigel: Yesterday 16:44:03 ..that was all from the APA meeting 16:44:20 ..we went throgh some DAPT issues 16:44:30 ..we did not complete on the TTML2 issues 16:44:45 ..there have been comments on this 16:44:52 .. we have one more TTML2 issue 16:45:17 ..Atsushi did you have look at the registry track 16:45:42 Atsushi: We may need to ask Philip he is the chair of the process cg 16:45:42 -> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#registries Registry track section of the Processs 16:46:07 Nigel: We could read in in the documentation 16:46:15 ..in order to define the registry 16:46:27 .. we need to define what the tables are 16:46:39 ..also the rules of maintenance 16:46:53 ..my proposal is to modify it by consensus in TTWG 16:47:35 ..we need to consider the bunch of bullets that we need to consider in the spec 16:47:42 ..I will make a proposal 16:47:51 ..what each of the bullets means for us 16:48:48 ..that is an action for me 16:48:56 ..I will put it in the ttm:role issue 16:49:39 ..Switching focus to DAPT 16:49:47 ..Cyril and I edited it 16:49:55 ..we made agreement yesteday 16:50:03 ..how to handle requirement issues 16:50:14 ..I want to highlight 16:50:23 ..I opened PRs 16:50:34 ..Cyril approved them 16:50:44 ..that may be not the usual rules 16:50:52 ..because I just merged them 16:51:04 ..please go ahead if you have objections 16:51:13 ..I will revert them in this case 16:51:34 ..in general the github policy applies 16:52:04 s/DAPT/DAPT-REQs 16:52:22 Gary: Didn't we had a consensus to merge the DAPT issues more quickly 16:52:39 ..before we are getting the first public working group note 16:52:49 Nige: we alreaday got that stage 16:52:58 Gary: Ok 16:52:59 s/Nige:/Nigel: 16:53:25 Nigel: We agreed that for DAPT but not DAPT-REQs 16:53:36 cyril has joined #tt 16:53:43 .. Apologies I did not mean to bypass our normal process. 16:53:47 rrsagent, pointer 16:53:47 See https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-tt-irc#T16-53-47 16:54:17 Nigel: There is a bit of thought on the workflow 16:54:33 ..an extra issue has been raised 16:54:50 ..Cyril raised a issue about the process steps 16:55:01 ..that should be sequential 16:56:14 ..btsimonh opened issue 16:56:25 Subtopic: Recording, Mixing instructions, multiple audios per time period w3c/dapt-reqs#21 16:56:32 github: https://github.com/w3c/dapt-reqs/issues/21 16:56:54 Nigel: I believe that the real world requirements 16:57:00 ..expressed in this issue 16:57:10 ..can already be met by the proposals in DAPT 16:57:22 ..I will check and respond 16:57:59 ..do we need to discuss more on DAPT 16:58:05 Cyril: Yes 16:58:13 Subtopic: DAPT 16:58:18 ..we did not agree e.g. on the numer of DAPT profiles 16:58:27 ..we could continue offline 16:58:36 s/..we did not/Cyril: we did not 16:58:43 ..but there was no strong objections to have two profiles 16:58:59 Pierre: I was just listening to this issue yesteday 16:59:10 ..i may not have solution 16:59:27 ..it needs to be a lot easier for the user 16:59:40 q+ 16:59:43 ..to have more than one profile in a spec will make it more 16:59:48 ..difficult for users. 17:00:03 Nigel: My first take was to have only one profile 17:00:06 ..for that reason 17:00:15 ..but I liked the idea to define 17:00:33 ..passes of different processors in DAPT 17:01:09 Pierre: From the user perspective 17:01:39 ..if I have used only the audio profile features 17:01:55 ..but I give it to processor that does not support it 17:02:02 ..what happens? 17:02:38 Nigel: First step: the processor should not break 17:02:51 .. if he does not understand the audio vocabulary 17:03:01 ..that is the main thing. 17:03:20 Pierre: If I provide a document that does not have audio 17:03:40 ..but I present it to a processor that process audio 17:05:09 ..what happens? 17:05:26 ..Could you walk me through the examples? 17:05:29 -> https://w3c.github.io/adpt/#bbc-example-section Example document from ADPT 17:05:33 Nigel: here is an example 17:05:49 ..you might expect that it is loaded 17:07:07 ..if there is for example an editor 17:07:13 ..that does not support audio 17:07:36 ..it will not use anything related to the audio vocabulary 17:07:49 ..but it will allow you to edit the other content 17:08:17 q+ 17:08:23 ack n 17:08:44 Pierre: I would expect all processors to support all vocabulary, but whether 17:08:57 .. or not sound comes out is to do with the capability of the processor. 17:09:13 .. It would be weird for an editor not to support the audio tags, even if it does not support playback. 17:09:31 .. It would be odd to have two classes of processor, one that supports some subset of vocabulary and one that doesn't. 17:09:50 .. I think that's what you're saying is an editor should be able to adjust the wording. 17:10:03 .. By the same token I would expect it to be able to adjust clipBegin and clipEnd. 17:10:13 Nigel: That's my starting point as well. 17:10:30 .. I think Cyril's argument is that a pure dubbing script editor has no use for the audio features at all, 17:10:49 .. so forcing implementers to implement that audio vocabulary when it is not relevant to their use case, 17:11:06 .. and then telling them their implementation does not conform seems unfriendly at best. 17:11:51 Cyril: Right 17:12:01 q+ 17:12:08 Pierre: That's incredibly complex for the average user to understand. 17:12:10 plh has joined #tt 17:12:14 Cyril: What is your suggestion? 17:12:29 Pierre: I'm not super familiar with DAPT but the first question I would ask is how hard is it for a processor 17:12:41 .. to manipulate the audio features even if it is not capable of playing the audio, 17:12:54 .. semantically and syntactically. Is it incredibly difficult? 17:13:09 Cyril: Not that difficult to ignore and preserve vocabulary, but why? 17:13:10 ack at 17:13:15 ack pal 17:13:17 q- 17:13:29 Andreas: If an implementation is built for one purpose but then has to support other features for 17:14:17 .. use cases it will never support then it makes no sense to do that. 17:14:41 Nigel: Then what is the impact of saying that such an implementation is not fully conformant with DAPT? 17:15:09 Andreas: Do we need this strict guidance that we have different feature scopes and what is conformant 17:15:12 .. or not conformant? 17:15:34 Nigel: At some level yes we do but I support making it as friendly as possible for the user community. 17:16:48 .. I thought we'd said we would declare different processor types with different requirements. 17:16:55 Cyril: I think it is easier to have 2 profiles. 17:17:08 Nigel: I think it comes down to the same thing, it's just a matter of how we say it clearly. 17:17:24 Cyril: To conclude on this, Nigel and I will probably continue to talk about it after the meeting. 17:17:33 .. Are there any preferences or objections one way or another? 17:17:46 Andreas: I personally think that because it's not a clear or easy issue, if you both agree on something 17:17:54 .. and then present it to the WG that's best. 17:17:57 Pierre: +1 17:18:11 .. I was just providing input as observer of the discussion yesterday. 17:18:14 Cyril: It's useful 17:18:19 Nigel: Very useful 17:18:46 Pierre: I observed that it started out wanting to be simple and then got into processor conformance! 17:18:51 [laughter and agreement] 17:18:57 Topic: IMSC-HRM issues 17:19:49 Subtopic: HRM imposes disproportionate cost to short gaps between ISDs w3c/imsc-hrm#49 17:19:59 github: https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/issues/49 17:20:27 Pierre: Background - this issue has been brewing for some time. 17:20:44 .. The issue is that there is in fact a practice, depending on provider, territory etc., 17:21:00 .. where if the gap between two subtitles is shorter than 1 second then it is narrowed to 2 or 3 frames 17:21:08 .. at TV framerate, i.e. 20-40ms. 17:21:18 .. This is for example in the Netflix guidelines. 17:21:32 .. Recently there was a thread on LinkedIn, started by Simon Hailes, where he asked the question. 17:22:04 -> https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-hailes-31a1723/recent-activity/shares/ LinkedIn discussion 17:22:22 Pierre: I've seen samples of this for a while. It turns out that sometimes it is an error when converting 17:22:39 .. 608, but there's pretty strong evidence that there is practice to introduce that small gap. 17:24:18 .. The impact on the HRM is severe because the gaps translate to very short empty ISDs. 17:24:32 .. The challenge is that right now the HRM says that you start rendering a non-empty ISD at 17:24:38 .. the end of the previous non-empty ISD. 17:25:05 .. The issue is that a 20ms gap is too short a time to fully draw the subtitle. 17:25:23 .. The rendering should really have started when the previous non-empty ISD was rendered. 17:25:50 .. Currently the model assumes that empty ISDs are full subtitles, and include them in a double buffering model, 17:25:57 .. and if they're very short there's not enough time. 17:26:18 .. The PR suggests a trivial model where empty ISDs become part of the previous ISD, and there's just a single 17:26:24 .. clear at the end of each non-empty ISD. 17:26:48 .. That means that the gap issue is eliminated. I think it was introduced without knowing there is a gap. 17:26:54 .. I've implemented as a PR on the open source code too. 17:26:58 q+ 17:27:12 .. I advise people to try the revised model on their documents and report on it. 17:27:14 q? 17:27:17 ack nigel 17:27:52 Nigel: Are you saying that a clear is implied at the end of every non-empty ISD or just the ones 17:27:56 .. followed by an empty ISD? 17:28:00 Pierre: All of them. 17:28:17 .. It solves another problem, or addresses a weirdness in the current algorithm, where the 17:28:29 .. algorithm says there is a cost in clearing the root container for every ISD but not the first one. 17:28:36 .. Presumably you start with a clear root container. 17:28:48 .. Of course clearing the root container at the end of the ISD removes that branch. 17:28:52 q+ 17:30:11 Nigel: There's a practice of incrementally adding words on each ISD so it may not be right to clear at the 17:30:18 .. end of every ISD, only those followed by an empty ISD. 17:30:33 Pierre: There was already a clear at the beginning of processing each ISD, so it's a minor change. 17:30:39 ack ata 17:30:47 Andreas: How you describe this, it makes sense to me Pierre. 17:31:05 .. If I understand correctly I cannot imagine that any conformant documents for the previous HRM would 17:31:13 .. no longer be conformant with the new HRM. 17:31:25 .. Also, decoders that depend on the previous model: would they still accept this? 17:31:40 .. A document that has this gap and is not currently conformant but would be conformant after this change, 17:31:44 .. would it still play back okay? 17:32:06 Pierre: In practice, my guess is the impact will be minimal. 17:32:19 .. As part of the exit criteria we need large catalogues tested against the HRM to make sure we are 17:32:26 .. not doing something crazy. 17:32:43 Andreas: Are there any processors that use the HRM to validate content being received and refuse to play 17:32:51 .. based on validity rather than their capabilities? 17:32:55 Pierre: Never heard of that. 17:33:07 Andreas: The proposed change better reflects the main purpose of the HRM. I see this as a bug fix. 17:33:23 Pierre: I can't say why it was originally written this way, but it does simplify, especially from an 17:33:31 .. implementation perspective, and makes it easier to implement. 17:33:55 .. One note, the introduction mentions that it is used prior to distribution. I don't think 17:34:02 .. player level implementation makes any sense. 17:34:11 SUMMARY: Please review 17:34:23 q? 17:34:33 Topic: Rechartering and FO handling 17:34:49 scribe+ 17:37:04 nigel: welcome PLH 17:37:08 ... not sure what we need to discuss 17:37:16 plh: not everyone is up to speed 17:37:27 ... it would be fair to share where we are 17:37:40 ... we are all aware that we are doing the Council experiment for TT 17:37:55 ... I had conversations with Atsushi, told you some stuff, I misdirected him 17:38:09 ... I apologize for that 17:38:11 ... the way the council operates 17:38:30 ... there will be dismissals 17:38:40 ... those steps are not well documented yet because it's experimental 17:39:07 ... I wrote some steps in Feb with the AB 17:39:38 ... at some point, it says the Team runs the dismissal point to form the council 17:39:56 ... there is a way for people to get out of the council 17:40:10 ... once we run all those steps, we will know who will be in the council 17:40:14 ... we don't have a chair 17:40:28 ... AB, TAG, CEO and then dismissal, and whoever is left is part of the council 17:40:42 ... in parallel we are working on a team report to inform the council 17:40:53 ... the team may or may not provide a recommendation 17:41:00 ... in this case, I don't think we will provide one 17:41:13 ... before the council, it will be circulated to all parties involved 17:41:24 ... we may or may not modify report based on the feedback 17:41:46 ... possibly with an appendix with disagreements on what's in the report 17:41:49 q+ to ask for clarification of the status of the Mozilla objection 17:41:56 ... the goal is to inform the council as much as possible 17:42:10 ... with the exception of the CEO, the team will not be in the council 17:42:16 ... they will get only what's in the report! 17:42:28 ... they are entitled to invite people if they want clarifications 17:42:47 ... but nothing forces the chair to be invited 17:42:56 cyril: why Mozilla? 17:43:07 plh: because of the objection 17:43:11 cyril: but it's Apple 17:43:16 plh: oh, I'm confused 17:43:28 nigel: but Mozilla sent a message after the review period 17:43:35 plh: yes, we'll talk about it 17:43:57 ... the topic of "adequate implementation experience" is a controversial topic in the consortium 17:44:06 ack nigel 17:44:06 nigel, you wanted to ask for clarification of the status of the Mozilla objection 17:44:08 ... I remember warning the group about it 17:44:21 pal: let's not blame the victim 17:44:35 plh: pal you were blaming the staff for not doing better 17:44:43 ... there was nothing we could have done to avoid the FO 17:44:44 q+ to mention that those who did not object but voted in favour actively approved of the proposed text 17:45:02 ... in terms of timeframe, if the report and dismissal are done, we should be running the council in 3-4 weeks 17:45:05 q+ 17:45:26 nigel: I would like to come back to how you are treating Mozilla 17:45:36 ... they made clear their views but after the review period 17:45:43 ... and they are aligned with the objection 17:46:17 ... I'd like clarity on whether that is being considered an FO for the council 17:46:19 q+ 17:46:31 ... and independently, whether that plays a part in the dismissal/recusal process 17:46:44 plh: in terms of timing of the FO from Mozilla 17:46:47 ... I don't know 17:46:55 ... in the past, the Director could consider them 17:47:01 ... but with the council, I don't know 17:47:30 ... my take is that if the comment is relevant, they are going to take it into account 17:47:40 ... we are including it in the report and saying it is late 17:47:59 ... but we will ask the council if it is an FO or not 17:48:03 ... it is likely 17:48:37 ... in terms of dismissal, if someone indicates that Mozilla should be dismissed, people should reply to the request from the team 17:48:55 Present+ plh, Chris_Needham 17:50:07 q? 17:50:17 plh: this entire process is experimental 17:50:28 ... the process CG is very small and we welcome people 17:50:41 ... and feedback (we know we lack documentation) 17:50:59 nigel: I want to note that the charter went through an AC review process 17:51:13 ... some people reviewed it and considered fine 17:51:29 ... there is a risk of inflating the scale of the objection 17:51:36 ack nigel 17:51:36 nigel, you wanted to mention that those who did not object but voted in favour actively approved of the proposed text 17:51:40 ack pal 17:51:41 q+ to mention the breakout 17:52:00 pal: the FO is by definition a minority opinion 17:52:11 ... if there were a majority vote on the charter we would not be here 17:52:53 ... I would not describe stakeholder input separate from team input as minority necessarilu 17:52:59 ... I would say it's additional input 17:53:20 q+ cpn 17:53:24 ... the other question I have is when will the council be formed 17:53:29 plh: 3 or 4 weeks 17:53:38 ... that's what it takes to run the dismissal rules 17:53:48 pal: I'm less concerned about dismissal rules 17:53:57 ... I'm much more concerned with narrowing the scope of the council 17:54:10 ... the council can do whatever they want and that's extremely dangerous 17:54:18 ... the coucnil should not make up new rules 17:54:33 ... just whether a FO can be sustained 17:54:45 ... according to the current process 17:55:14 ... If I were the council, I would like the opportunity to interact with the objector but with other participants 17:55:32 ... it's an opportunity to interact and maybe catch missing points from the report 17:56:13 atai: what is the authority of the council? As I understand, it replaces the Director 17:56:24 ... so their decision will be final 17:56:31 plh: yes 17:57:05 atai: what happens to the Process when a decision of the Council is new 17:57:26 cpn: I did want to come back to the Mozilla comment and timing 17:57:46 ... whoever is the formal objector is required not to be on the council 17:58:10 ... so if the council considers the Mozilla objection into what they are considering 17:58:17 ... that would suggest Mozilla should not be in the council 17:58:44 plh: minority opinion - you are correct it was an abuse of language on my part 17:58:49 https://www.w3.org/2022/02/did-fo-report.html 17:58:54 ack cpn 17:59:02 ... this document talks about differing opinion 17:59:04 ack atai 17:59:06 ack plh 17:59:06 plh, you wanted to mention the breakout 17:59:36 ... this is an example, I welcome feedback on how to do it differently 17:59:49 ... I did not use "minority" in that document 17:59:58 q+ 18:00:01 ... about talking to the council, maybe not want to cast this in stone 18:00:33 ... but also it is a very long process, so forcing them to meet might take even more time 18:00:46 ... they have the choice to ask to talk to people 18:00:57 ... you are welcome to suggest it to the CG 18:01:21 ... I don't think we are ready to change the process yet 18:01:37 ... the council should be as narrow as possible so that they don't create precedent 18:01:56 ... the council is not going to be interested in proposing changes to the process yet 18:02:10 ... (see breakout minutes) 18:02:17 ... in terms of "final" decision 18:02:24 ... with the Director you could appeal 18:02:32 ... we expect that to be the same with the Council 18:02:39 ... that would go through the AC 18:02:57 ... and a certain number of members would need to ask for it and another number to support 18:03:06 ... so we expect the same process to apply 18:03:14 nigel: while we are in the FO Council experiment 18:03:20 ... this is initiated by the Director 18:03:46 ... am I right in thinking that the Council comes up with a conclusion, the Director will have the final say 18:03:49 plh: yes 18:03:59 ... so far the Director followed the Council 18:04:07 ... and I don't expect this to change 18:04:39 nigel: are we allowed to contact the Director before they makes the decision? 18:04:49 plh: yes, W3M will be acting as the Director 18:04:57 ... it is not an individual and I'm part of it 18:05:02 q? 18:05:07 ... we are transitioning to a Director-free process 18:05:26 plh: about Mozilla being forced to recuse themselves 18:05:33 ... I need to check, but you may be right 18:06:10 cpn: it is a concern that it is not clear 18:06:19 plh: concerns should be raised to the Process CG 18:06:46 q? 18:06:55 ack pal 18:07:18 Pierre: Going back to when you mentioned, philippe, that I had blamed the staff for not doing better, 18:07:35 .. those aren't the words I used, but it does point to something very awkward, because the current process 18:07:50 .. puts the Team in a position of choosing between members, especially if it's not just about the Process, 18:07:53 q+ 18:07:55 .. and I think that's a significant flaw. 18:08:09 .. The team will be trying to make all members happy, but we in W3C need to improve that. 18:08:27 .. The other thing is you would not force FO Council to get contact with everyone individually because that 18:08:44 .. would lengthen the duration, it should be that FO Council is exceptional, so the time taken should not 18:09:04 .. be an issue. It should be restricted to really egregious cases, not just when someone is not happy. 18:09:21 Philippe: The team may or may not take a position in the report. They are not forced to make a recommendation, 18:09:34 .. only to report the facts. In this case we are not taking a position, let's be clear. 18:09:42 .. We do have to report the facts. 18:10:00 .. Yes, sometimes we may misfire and an attempt to report facts may be taken as taking a position. 18:10:12 Pierre: In this case, what facts are there aside from Apple's FO wording? 18:10:23 Philippe: There was discussion in the WG, it was not done lightly. 18:10:34 .. There were attempts to resolve the FO. That needs to be documented as well. 18:10:35 q+ 18:10:38 ack plh 18:10:49 .. I'm sure that some people will have that in mind in the FO Council as well. 18:10:58 .. They want to understand the potential full scope of the issue as well. 18:11:06 .. You know a lot more now than you did 3 days ago! 18:11:23 .. The people of the council need to know the facts. There's a lot more than just the FO text from 18:11:27 .. Apple and Mozilla. 18:11:41 .. It's not going to be a 10 pages report, you're right there, but it's not just ... 18:11:59 .. In September 2020 when we did the first one, it didn't go well, because they wanted to know a lot more. 18:12:06 .. That's where the idea to generate a report came from. 18:12:19 .. There are people in the Council who have no idea what Timed Text is, so they should not 18:12:25 .. judge without additional input. 18:12:37 Pierre: Of course not, but I would ask stakeholders to present their opinions. 18:12:48 Philippe: All of that will be sent to the council. 18:12:59 .. In the case of DID the WG wrote a lengthy document explaining their position. 18:13:09 .. We ended up withdrawing that before it went to Council. 18:13:10 q? 18:13:12 ack nigel 18:13:38 Nigel: In this particular case it is relevant also that the very people in Apple who raised the FO are 18:13:50 .. members of this WG and did not participate in the discussions about the Charter text. 18:14:07 .. And helpfully, David Singer said on stage in the AC session earlier in the week that in such a case 18:14:17 .. the FO Council might reasonably consider that to be relevant. 18:14:35 Philippe: We will be glad to add that to our report, it is a fact. 18:15:07 Atsushi: Philippe, is it possible to share the latest draft? 18:15:18 Philippe: If you're comfortable with that, you've been writing it, then that's fine. 18:15:30 .. I didn't want to show anything without your authorisation. 18:15:56 Philippe: [off the record for minutes, because work in progress, shares draft text] 18:19:45 q? 18:22:37 cyril_ has joined #tt 18:25:10 Pierre: Thank you for the crash course on the FO Council, it is hard to find the documentation. 18:25:19 Philippe: No problem, I should have done it before. 18:25:36 .. This is all in flux. Fantasai and Florian are going to work on the Process document next week. 18:25:43 .. I have an action to work on the /Guide part too. 18:25:55 .. You are being one of the guinea pigs unfortunately, of this entire process. 18:27:03 .. I apologise for the time this is taking and the pain due to the rules being in flux. 18:27:17 .. Once we have enough written down in process and guide we will share more especially 18:27:26 .. with groups involved in the experiment so they can provide feedback. 18:27:55 .. As I said on Tuesday, going through a Council improves the quality of decisions we are making, 18:28:11 .. compared to what we used to get from the Director. There are more thoughts and more balance. 18:28:18 .. I can be proven wrong in the future though! 18:28:47 q? 18:29:16 Philippe: In terms of the team report next step, Atsushi and I will keep working on it. 18:29:26 .. Then it will be circulated to the wider team end of next week. 18:29:44 .. Then circulated to the official reviewers, modified incorporating any feedback or addendums, then 18:29:48 .. it will be given to the Council. 18:30:22 .. I'm hoping that neither Apple nor Mozilla will give me a hard time for sharing informally in advance. 18:30:32 Nigel: Apple is a member of the group, they could have been here. 18:30:43 Philippe: I did the same with Device and Sensor, I chose to do that. 18:31:02 Topic: TTML Implementation Experience, WG roadmap 18:41:53 atai has joined #tt 18:41:56 Nigel: Thought it would be useful to open up a discussion on implementation experience of TTML, 18:42:09 .. partly in response to an industry move to constrain IMSC even further. 18:42:26 .. Issues I have observed being mentioned by others: 18:42:46 .. * XML Parsing using javascript sometimes doesn't do an adequate job for TTML documents 18:43:12 .. * The data model is too open and there isn't a super clear relationship of e.g. div and p elements to 18:43:31 .. what may be considered something like a "Cue" in Text Track language. 18:43:35 .. Any others? 18:44:39 Andreas: I think we can discuss our general response to initiatives that simplify. 18:44:52 .. It's good to look at the issues and how they are satisfied. 18:45:08 .. This may not be so much different than what we've seen before where different companies 18:45:23 .. have their own internal guidelines or domain specific constraints. 18:45:40 .. Then there are other standards bodies like EBU that makes EBU-TT-D, a subset of IMSC. 18:45:50 .. It's not so different from other initiatives or activities. 18:46:08 Nigel: From a formal perspective there is no requirement on us to take any action right now. 18:46:25 Andreas: Yes, it is always good to reflect on the community response to our work. 18:46:29 Nigel: Absolutely. 18:46:53 Andreas: From personal experience, not representative, there are some parts of the community 18:47:09 .. who might not have a vast number of developers, who have problems with TTML or IMSC, but it is hard 18:47:29 .. to tell if this is a spec problem or a resource problem with the amount of effort put into this type of technology. 18:47:52 .. It is a general issue that subtitles and captions do not draw a significant amount of development effort. 18:48:00 q? 18:48:45 Nigel: Another thing that's been mentioned, even while we've been doing DAPT work is that 18:49:15 .. the readability and friendliness of TTML-based profiles can be off-putting to beginners and non-experts. 18:49:45 .. By the way, I have no proposals for actions for any of these. 18:50:00 Andreas: It may relate to what we discussed earlier with profiles and ease of implementation. 18:50:16 .. It may be a requirement as Pierre mentioned before and we said yesterday to make it as easy 18:50:28 .. as possible for people to adopt, in the user community who asked for it. 18:50:37 .. We need to make sure it is understood and meets their requirements. 18:50:54 .. Ideally to involve them in the process and deal with their comments. 18:51:01 Nigel: Of course we're required to seek Wide Review. 18:51:16 Andreas: Yes, it's a parallel activity to have an active process of engaging with implementers. 18:51:37 Nigel: I think doing that, if we can document it, would be excellent evidence of wide review. 18:51:56 Andreas: Some W3C specs are written very closely with implementations, where people write the spec 18:52:13 .. and implement in parallel. That is beneficial for all the specs. If you can motivate other stakeholders 18:52:21 .. outside the group to work with it that would be good. 18:52:50 Nigel: On that point, as well as the open source prototype that I made (with help from colleagues), 18:53:08 .. I have feedback from 2 implementers at least, who are not WG members, that they plan to implement 18:53:12 .. DAPT. 18:53:24 .. So I'm confident that we will have that good engagement. 18:54:19 .. 18:54:20 .. 18:54:43 .. On the WG roadmap front, a while ago (2019?) we talked about the idea of a variant of TTML using CSS for styling. 18:54:49 .. Is that still something that would motivate people? 18:54:56 Andreas: Explain the concept again? 18:55:14 Nigel: The idea is to have a version of TTML where in place of the TTML styling vocabulary, 18:55:24 .. CSS could instead be used directly. 18:55:40 .. It would need some changes including the addition of class attributes, but also we would need to understand 18:56:00 .. the back/forward compatibility approach. 18:56:32 .. The goal I think is to simplify TTML and make it easier to adopt newer CSS developments, as well 18:56:50 .. as possibly helping motivate CSS to generate solutions to the issues we have raised in the past, for example 18:56:59 .. around line area formatting and background area merging. 18:57:03 q+ 18:57:16 ack pal 18:58:02 Andreas: The idea is interesting but if there is not a push to do it I do not know why we would work on it. 18:58:14 Pierre: My observation recently is that has not been the biggest sticking point for TTML. 18:58:22 .. Just looking at questions I get asked: 18:58:30 .. XML Namespaces is a recurring topic, unfortunately. 18:58:40 .. That's the only XML issue really. 18:58:50 .. That's for folks that try to edit or parse by hand. 18:59:04 .. Another recurring issue that has nothing to do with TTML, really, is I see documents with SMPTE timecode 18:59:20 .. in it and there are all kinds of ambiguity there. That's more an issue of practice. 18:59:36 .. My personal experience with creating ttconv, the Timed Text format converter, is that 18:59:54 .. the TTML2 data model is really nice, it does everything. It's serialisation to XML in specifically 19:00:04 .. mapping ruby elements to span is a huge pain. That's a lot of special case code. 19:00:17 .. Having TTML in MDN has been awesome. 19:00:29 .. We might be able to do even more and offer simple templates for people to use, 19:00:40 .. but every time I point out a particular way someone points out they do it differently. 19:00:42 q+ 19:00:45 .. That's what comes to mind. 19:00:48 q+ 19:00:52 ack atai 19:01:07 Andreas: 2 points: XML namespaces is a recurring issue for all TTML vocabulary especially since 19:01:21 .. XML has declined in the awareness of developers, a bit. 19:01:36 .. I made a proposal a while ago for a simplified XML without namespaces which would help but I'm not 19:01:41 .. sure it is worth the effort right now. 19:01:59 .. I support the comment about MDN. Also with upcoming profiles of TTML from stakeholders who think 19:02:09 .. it is too complicated, more supporting guidance material would be a good thing. 19:02:19 .. Also related to the new activity on dubbing and audio description. 19:02:21 q? 19:03:17 Nigel: Not sure about templates, but things like the "quick how-to" in the BBC Subtitle Guidelines could be relevant. 19:03:28 -> https://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/forproducts/guides/subtitles#Appendix-4--Quick-EBU-TT-D-how-to Quick How to in BBC Subtitle Guidelines 19:04:26 Topic: Joint meeting with Media WG 19:05:18 Present+ Alastor_Wu 19:07:45 Present+ Eric_Carlson 19:08:52 +1 to Gary 19:09:26 Present+ Matt_Wolenetz 19:10:09 eric-carlson has joined #tt 19:11:10 Nigel: Welcome Media WG folk, we have 3 topics for the agenda of this joint meeting. 19:11:20 .. * Behaviour with controls (with Media WG) 19:11:31 .. * Video element updates around shadow DOM and containing content (NB see breakout session relating to this) (with Media WG) 19:11:42 eric-carlson_ has joined #tt 19:11:43 .. * Audio description - WebVTT and DAPT 19:11:58 cpn has joined #tt 19:12:02 .. Anything else for the agenda, anything to make sure we cover? 19:12:04 scribe+ cpn 19:12:17 group: no 19:12:27 Subtopic: Behaviour with controls (with Media WG) 19:13:15 github: https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/503 19:13:54 Gary: There's a Chrome issue around how collision detection should work 19:14:25 ... What I want to talk about is, if you use native text tracks and making sure captions aren't obscured 19:14:47 ... The spec says that when the native controls show, auto-positioned cues should move out of the way of the native controls 19:15:19 ... Is it possible to extend that to keep captions out of the way of the area where controls are shown 19:15:39 ... In a previous Media WG, Eric mentioned if doing something in CSS would be useful 19:16:02 ... I had the idea to have a clip path property on the video element to define regions 19:16:34 ... That could potentially allow you to specify a number of regions, and have the user agent try to render captions outside those positions 19:17:00 Eric: Does it need to be that complex? The more complex it is, the harder to implement, and possible to not get quite right 19:17:11 ... I was thinking of something like a safe area insert 19:17:20 ... Haven't thought through the details though 19:18:09 Gary: Something like that might be fine. It would mean you only have control of the top or bottom of the media element, not for centered controls 19:18:47 Nigel: Does it matter if you specify a positive area where it's OK to render captions, or a negative area where it's not OK? 19:18:51 Eric: I don't think so 19:19:05 ... Presumably one is just the inverse of the other 19:19:17 Nigel: I thought if might affect computational complexity 19:19:22 Eric: I don't think so 19:19:39 Gary: Converting from one to the other shouldn't be hard 19:20:03 Nigel: For a real world use case, you'd need more complexity than a single rectangle. 19:20:49 ... Thinking of a typical player with scrub bar and settings button at the top somewhere. Players have some visual complexity in the UI, which constrains where you'd put other content in a less than simple way 19:21:34 ... Is it worth thinking about how the data flows? It's a two-way problem, there are two independent things, either could be rendered natively or not natively: captions and controls 19:21:52 ... Come up with a design that handles all permutations? 19:22:15 ... Will be controversial if we try to say where player controls go. Is there an elegant way to do this? 19:22:29 Gary: Don't think it's a big issue for custom rendered captions and video control bar 19:22:45 Nigel: Really? 19:23:03 Eric: Can be done with the web inspector, but not at runtime 19:23:23 Nigel: So you'd have to design for each browser based on inspection and how it behaves. That's not very friendly 19:23:38 Gary: This can be done, though, whereas the opposite is a lot more complicated 19:24:02 ... I've done it, my current method is changing the line property of auto-positioned cues, and heuristics 19:24:02 q+ 19:24:11 q+ 19:24:16 ... It works across browsers, and there are bugs. Needing to do that is a pain 19:24:19 ack n 19:25:10 Cyril: Why is it a problem, why do we care about position of the captions while the controls are on. That's where the users' focus is 19:25:39 Eric: Controls are shown for some amount of time, mouse moves. That interval is where there's a problem 19:25:52 Cyril: Couldn't browsers reduce the viewport size? 19:26:19 Nigel: That's discussed in the issue. Native controls can do that, but for custom controls it's common to have a non-rectangular area 19:27:24 Gary: For live, the progress bar is gone, so theoretically captions don't need to move even with controls shown. There are complex permutations 19:27:41 Eric: Two issues: Native controls with custom cues, and native cues with custom controls. Neither knows about the other 19:27:53 ... We want one solution that works for both 19:28:36 ... I don't think it's hard to achieve. Custom controls are scripted, so there's a way for it. Cues and custom cues are just logic implemented in different places 19:28:49 ... Each just needs to pay attention to the information provided by the other 19:29:07 Gary: So the video element would need to provide information on the positioning of native controls? 19:29:08 Eric: Sure 19:29:49 Gary: Is there a privacy issue? 19:30:13 Eric: Don't think it will be. You can use the inspector to check the position for a particular browser version 19:30:43 Nigel: Are there no accssibility settings that affect size and position of native controls? 19:30:51 Eric: I don't think it's an issue 19:31:14 Gary: I think in Safari the width may vary if there's a chevron 19:31:37 Eric: All of that is implemented by the JS that implements the controls, it doesn't have access to anything the DOM doesn't 19:31:53 q? 19:31:53 q? 19:31:56 ack cy 19:31:58 ack cyri 19:32:16 ack at 19:33:31 Andreas: Which group would develop solutions? Is it something for HTML or Media WG? 19:33:38 q+ 19:34:21 Chris: This tends to be close to the video element, which is a WHATWG thing. We tend not to specify things, 19:34:35 .. but MediaWG could begin the spec work and then hands it over. 19:34:48 Eric: Agree, we have the right people, then where it ends up is secondary. 19:35:20 Cyril: Is there no interest from Google or Mozilla or Edge, given that only Apple is present and nobody from anywhere else has commented. 19:35:31 Eric: Could be a matter of physical presence here at TPAC. 19:35:49 Alastor_Wu: I'm from Firefox, could you repeat? 19:35:56 s/specify things/specify things that closely extend HTMLMediaElement/ 19:36:09 Cyril: Since no browser vendor has commented, are they not interested? 19:36:23 Alastor_Wu: First time I've seen this, I will look into it and comment later. 19:36:37 Gary: No comment is probably not knowing about it rather than not caring. 19:36:45 Cyril: So first step is to socialise this. 19:36:50 Eric: Yes, I think that's right. 19:37:11 Chris: Reflects what's happened today, with Alastor and Eric here but not a strong presence from others. 19:37:20 Gary: Should we tag specific individuals on the issue? 19:37:29 Eric: Yes, good idea, tag me and Jer from Apple. 19:37:45 .. I don't know the right person from Chrome. 19:38:05 Chris: Chris Cunningham suggested Evan Yu to me. 19:38:28 .. I can follow up with Dale Curtis, I hope he can point us in the right direction for Chrome. 19:38:47 Nigel: Anything else on this topic? 19:39:40 SUMMARY: Bring this topic to the attention of the relevant stakeholders to gauge interest 19:39:52 Topic: Video element updates around shadow DOM and containing content (NB see breakout session relating to this) (with Media WG) 19:41:19 Nigel: This relates to the previous topic. There was a breakout on Wednesday to talk about issues with use of the video element concerning the ability to polyfill stuff, layout of custom children 19:41:27 ... The browser has a closed shadow DOM 19:42:06 ... If you want to do something like easy layout of children, it's difficult. Makes polyfills difficult 19:42:52 ... There seems to be an accessibility and privacy side to the current design that prevents content owners getting any reporting detail about use of a11y settings, data to help improve products 19:43:35 ... Caption on/off information is available, can be done with cue onenter/onexit handlers. But you can't know about sizing changes 19:44:37 ... The breakout session didn't end with a solution. It seemed like some kind of HTML feature could be added, to support reporting of aggregated reporting of settings on a site-wide basis 19:45:19 ... The other idea I raised was, as part of this feature, is a signed web component, that's trusted to talk to an endpoint and could write to the video element shadow DOM, to polyfill caption display 19:45:39 ... And safely get access to private a11y settings without being able to communicate that back to the page 19:46:05 q+ 19:46:10 ... Would that be a good idea, too complex, is there a better way? 19:46:13 ack cp 19:46:31 Eric: I think your latter proposal is a huge can of worms 19:46:43 ... I'd be surprised if that worked 19:47:05 ... Both technically and from a level of interest point of view 19:47:44 It'll be hard to get agreement on it. It's a lot of new concepts for the web: signed components, access to private data, access to closed shadow DOM, it'll get people worried 19:48:11 s/It'll/... It'll/ 19:48:38 Eric: Which is the bigger problem? Data about what people are using, or having style applied to captions that you render yourself? 19:49:18 ... I think it's a problem for users. Anyone who wants to write their own caption presentation code, they sacrifice the ability for the user to apply their settings 19:50:02 ... That's unfriendly to users. It would be a blocking issue for us if we can't get data, as it impacts product development, which then impacts users. So they're not separable concerns 19:50:34 q+ 19:50:37 Eric: Technically they are separable. With what we've done in Webkit, you could have your own caption style with user preferences 19:51:02 ... Could have two separate solutions. Don't necessarily need access to user's settings to solve either of these problems 19:51:11 ... Nor one solution that addresses both 19:51:17 s/... I think/Nigel: I think/ 19:52:14 Gary: It does need to be solved. Assuming we can improve caption rendering and have the Safari experimental feature everywhere @@? 19:53:11 Nigel: It makes adoption harder. I want to close the loop. Could do user testing, but having an exception that there's no way to get a11y data 19:53:37 Eric: It's not exposed because it's a fingerprinting vector. There's all kinds of things we don't expose, not specific to a11y 19:54:05 ... The problem comes when a site uses that data to uniquely identify a user 19:54:36 Nigel: Aggregated and anonymised data on a site-wide basis is useful, in a way that breaks the link to an individual user, is helpful 19:55:02 Eric: This is why I think they're separable problems 19:55:23 Nigel: Focusing on smaller problems rather than fewer bigger problems is helpful 19:55:40 Eric: We have a proposal for one of the issues, but not for the other 19:56:12 ... We have a proposal for applying user styles to custom captions. We're planning to work on that. There's an explainer, but we got strong negative feedback from Google 19:56:20 ... We plan to revive it and turn it into a spec 19:56:26 Nigel: I'd like to support that 19:56:34 q? 19:56:41 ack eric 19:56:49 ack gk 19:57:40 q+ 19:57:43 Pierre: Regarding user preference, there's some international effort happening, ITU and CTA, for user preferences applied to a11y services 19:57:53 ... Implementers might want to get involved 19:58:22 Nigel: Their goal appears to be to define a common format for a11y settings that can be shared across devices and platforms 19:58:35 Pierre: They're looking at vocabulary and model now 19:58:59 Nigel: I've pointed out strongly that this is highly sensitive data and to be careful about it. The power of the feature makes it dangerous 19:59:12 Pierre: I pointed out WCAG, but they didn't know about that 19:59:38 ... It's going to impact players primarily. Suggest paying attention to it or getting involved 19:59:39 ack ata 20:00:16 Andreas: I echo that. The privacy issue isn't isolated to web technology 20:00:38 ... Each organisation is solving it for itself. Seems to be a global issue. Where is the best place to talk about it? 20:01:11 q+ 20:01:24 ... One proposal is whether W3C could be a place. Not sure if it's feasible for different groups working on the same issue. Could be a CG? 20:01:27 ack pal 20:02:06 Pierre: The risk for the web platform is that I expect the ITU to create something and CTA to follow it. Absent something from the web community those things will be adopted 20:02:35 ... CTA and ITU docs are public now 20:02:46 q? 20:03:40 Nigel: To summarise, there's a few things. A proposal to move forward to support custom rendering of captions while applying user a11y settings 20:04:05 ... Second, there's no current solution for aggregated reporting of usage of a11y settings. That would be helpful to content providers 20:04:39 ... Third, there's work happening outside W3C to define portable and reusable formats for a11y settings that it would be wise for W3C members to be aware of 20:05:11 Eric: It would be useful for people who are aware of ITU and CTA activities to bring in W3C a11y experts, sooner rather than later 20:05:15 Nigel: Good point 20:05:43 Eric: On the second point, a path forward could be to work with some W3C a11y experts to come up with a proposal 20:05:53 q+ 20:06:16 ... Useful, it's a sensitive subject, so bring in the people who think about the issues all the time 20:06:25 ack atai 20:08:23 Topic: Audio description - WebVTT and DAPT 20:09:32 Nigel: This topic is an information sharing session. 20:09:46 Cyril: Two activities happening: 20:09:57 .. 1. DAPT - TTWG members know about it, MediaWG members should know. 20:10:16 .. New draft being worked on to provide an exchange format for producing dubbing scripts and audio descriptions. 20:10:31 .. 2. Using WebVTT audio description files and rendering them on the fly client-side with text to speech. 20:10:40 .. I see overlap here - obviously audio description. 20:10:48 .. One is an authoring format, the other a delivery format. 20:11:00 .. Whatever we author should be mapped onto WebVTT, one way or another. 20:11:03 q+ 20:11:17 .. In your presentation in the breakout you mentioned Extended Audio Description, 20:11:27 .. Audio Description is audio that describes the video image. 20:11:46 .. If it is too long and there isn't time to say it all, you may want to pause the video to allow it to complete, 20:11:59 .. and this may be more or less desirable for different types or genres of content. 20:12:21 Eric: Léonie made an excellent point: when she watches a movie by herself she appreciates 20:12:35 .. extended descriptions but when she watches with her sighted husband she doesn't want that because 20:12:39 .. she gets information from him. 20:13:01 .. One thing that occurred to me after listening to her, I wondered if it would be helpful to have an 20:13:20 .. additional kind attribute value to indicate whether audio descriptions should or should not interrupt playback. 20:13:36 .. Even when an author creates what they intend to be standard descriptions, because the amount of time 20:13:51 .. it takes for an utterance to be spoken can vary depending on the user's preferred voice and speed, 20:14:01 .. something that you author intending it to fit a given gap may actually not. 20:14:18 .. I wonder if it would be helpful to have two different kinds, so the author can describe how they're meant to be rendered. 20:14:32 .. If you make a descriptions file intended to be used without interrupting playback, you could also 20:14:46 .. make an extended alternative and the user can pick. Then the UA can implement the behaviour depending 20:14:50 .. on the type of description file. 20:14:52 q? 20:14:52 q+ 20:14:54 q+ 20:15:06 scribe+ 20:15:22 nigel: from my point of view, DAPT it's beyond an exchange format 20:15:38 ... for AD the overall use case satisfied with the WebVTT approach 20:15:46 ... but also satisfied with DAPT 20:15:56 ... is to expose the text of the audio description in a timed way 20:16:05 ... with the audio adjustment 20:16:32 ... in my demo, I considered ADPT that could be used server-side and client-side as well 20:16:40 ... about the "kind" attribute 20:16:46 ... I imagined a diffferent solution 20:16:53 ... because they are both AD 20:17:00 ... and the choice to pause or not is a user setting 20:17:40 ... and the knowledge of whether any partiular AD track is likely to have Extended description is orthogonal 20:17:56 ... I'm not completely clear about the benefits of signaling it 20:18:28 ... I'm not convinced overloading kind is the right thing to do 20:18:31 q? 20:18:34 ack ni 20:18:37 eric-carlson_: the way I implemented it is an OS setting 20:18:50 ... if that's on, I ran the text track selection logic 20:18:57 ... preferred user language 20:19:08 ... rank the tracks and picks the highest score 20:19:31 ... the user can then, if they want, from the caption menu, override that: turn it off or on 20:19:41 ... even if they don't have the systems setting on 20:19:51 s/benefits of signaling it/benefits of signaling it, unless we want to support a UA setting for preference of extended vs non-extended descriptions 20:20:05 ... if all we have is a user readable tag that says AD or XAD, the user has to make a choice all the time 20:20:21 ... it's extremely annoying to have a brief pause 20:20:48 ... with the test content I have, the utterances are slightly longer and it pauses for a fraction of a scond, that's disruptive 20:21:12 ... but if I know that it's a standard AD track, I'd have heuristics to let it go through 20:21:55 nigel: you could set a user-variable value, regardless of the kind of track 20:22:02 q? 20:22:11 ack gk 20:22:13 eric-carlson_: you could but tha'ts a weird setting that would be hard to go in the OS setttings 20:22:28 gkatsev: I don't think an XAD kind is necessary 20:22:52 ... if a faster playback rate, and it might end before 20:22:58 eric-carlson_: for some lectures, no way 20:23:15 q+ to mention my advice to higher education institutions about audio describing lectures 20:23:18 gkatsev: I don't see a need for it 20:23:40 ... I see a point that if the speech engine creates short pauses that'd be bad user experience 20:24:08 .. it'd be nice if the users could choose 20:24:21 ... I'm not certain there is a need for another kind 20:24:27 ack atai 20:24:52 atai: I clearly see advantage of signaling it with metadata 20:25:29 ... if some content includes stopping the video that should be signalled 20:26:04 ... I agree with Nigel that adjusting/have a switch where the user can decide a certain behavior is good 20:26:14 q? 20:26:23 ... I see a really good overlap between these activities 20:26:49 ack nige 20:26:49 nigel, you wanted to mention my advice to higher education institutions about audio describing lectures 20:26:57 nigel: we did work on reqs for AD 20:27:03 ... they do touch on user reqs 20:27:13 ... experience of doing AD over a very long time at the BBC 20:27:26 ... shows that how you duck the background audio really matters 20:27:43 ... automated solutions don't do a good job 20:27:50 q+ 20:27:59 eric-carlson_: are you saying there is no way to do it? 20:28:09 nigel: machine learnign can analyse the sound and duck it 20:28:14 ... but it's a hard problem 20:28:28 ... some practices of AD have a high production quality 20:28:35 ... and you want to preserve the decisions 20:28:47 ... that includes unducking the sound to allow an important sound to go through 20:29:11 ... seemingly secondary but worth looking into 20:29:22 ... other aspect is for lecture scenarios 20:29:35 ... some universities in the UK make their lecture accessible 20:29:45 ... it's more cost effective and better for the audience 20:29:56 ... if they describe all the stuff in the dialog 20:30:05 ... you need AD when the content was badly authored 20:30:26 ... as a general rule, people should make their content accessible in the first place 20:30:29 eric-carlson_: absolutely 20:30:41 ... but there is an enormous amount of content that is not accessible 20:30:47 ... that we could make accessible 20:31:07 q? 20:31:09 nigel: the narrative needs to be focused the right 20:31:16 ack cyril 20:31:32 Cyril: Since WebVTT and SRT are very close, Simon Hailes pointed to something called SrtAD, 20:31:46 .. which seems to be extended SRT for Audio Descriptions, with more tags, and you may want to look at 20:31:48 .. that for WebVTT. 20:32:08 Nigel: I wanted to ask that: are extensions needed to WebVTT to support this use case? 20:32:13 q+ 20:32:28 Gary: Clearly no at the base level, but it very likely could be useful to have for better support. 20:32:36 https://github.com/w3c/dapt-reqs/issues/21#issuecomment-1249173697 20:32:51 .. For example a DAPT to WebVTT converter specification might be useful. 20:32:55 Eric: Absolutely. 20:33:28 Nigel: For that, ideally you'd have a way to reference and play back external audio resources. 20:33:38 Eric: That would require changes to HTML, that could be a good thing. 20:33:55 Gary: The first pass would be to strip everything that isn't text to produce a WebVTT document. 20:34:04 .. It may not be ideal but we don't need to do everything at once. 20:34:08 q? 20:34:16 ack atai 20:34:29 Andreas: Final question regarding Eric's work on Webkit. 20:34:41 .. I only followed the first half of the breakout session. In terms of the direction, 20:34:47 .. is this only for Webkit? 20:35:02 Eric: There's someone from Google who is doing essentially the same work on Chromium right now. 20:35:13 Andreas: Just browser space or does it need specification work? 20:35:32 Eric: Goes back to Nigel's point: we should see if anything additional is needed for WebVTT to make it 20:35:35 .. useful. 20:35:46 Gary: Can be done client-side but a native feature is useful. 20:35:57 Topic: Meeting close 20:36:17 Nigel: Thanks everyone for two days of great meeting! We're adjourned. 20:36:22 Gary: Thanks everyone. 20:36:47 Atsushi: [shows the sunrise in Japan] 20:36:54 rrsagent, make minutes 20:36:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-tt-minutes.html nigel 20:38:24 nigel has joined #tt 20:42:46 nigel has joined #tt 20:59:03 nigel has joined #tt 21:25:40 nigel has joined #tt 21:28:28 nigel has joined #tt 21:29:06 nigel has joined #tt 21:33:04 nigel has joined #tt 21:34:01 nigel has joined #tt 21:35:08 nigel has joined #tt 21:37:19 nigel has joined #tt 21:39:06 nigel has joined #tt 21:46:10 nigel has joined #tt 21:46:43 nigel has joined #tt 22:59:06 Zakim has left #tt