Re: Minutes from the Media Telecon on Wednesday 12 May

A quick note to list some of the things that I heard out of today's
conference that we want to address once we're finished with the
requirements collection:

* assess "time stamp" file formats (I'm borrowing a term that John has
keyed for time-aligned external text formats for media resources) with
respect to the requirements we have collected, which should probably
include WebSRT (which now lives at
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#websrt)

* assess our previous multitrack API proposal (at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI) and which has
not yet found inclusion in HTML5

* assess our previous media text associations proposal (at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations) and which
has been adapted into HTML5 in a changed form through the <track>
element, see http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#the-track-element

* we will also want to assess what other accessibility gaps still
exist wrt HTML5 media elements; note e.g. that there is as yet no
means to associate external sign language video or external
descriptive audio files with a media resource


Regards,
Silvia.



On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> Minutes from todays Media teleconference are provided below in text and
> are available as html at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html
>
> � W3C
>
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - DRAFT -
>
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
>
> 12 May 2010
>
> � Agenda
>
> � See also: IRC log
>
> Attendees
>
> � Present
> � � � � �+1.408.307.aaaa, +1.650.862.aabb, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Sean_Hayes, Janina_Sajka,
> � � � � �Judy, Mark_Hakkinen, Silvia, +61.3.986.4.aacc, Kenny_Johar?, Kenny_Johar, Geoff_Freed
>
> � Regrets
> � � � � �Philippe_Le_H�garet
>
> � Chair
> � � � � �John_Foliot
>
> � Scribe
> � � � � �silvia
>
> Contents
>
> � � * Topics
> � � � � 1. 1. Requirements Gathering (Update)
> � � * Summary of Action Items
> � � __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> � <trackbot> Date: 12 May 2010
>
> � <MichaelC> meeting: Media sub-group - HTML Accessibility Task Force
>
> � <JF> == Agenda ==
>
> � <JF> 1. Requirements Gathering (Update)
>
> � <JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/MultimediaAccessibility
>
> � <JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media
>
> � <JF> 2. Integration of 2 Draft Proposals into Draft Spec by Editor
>
> � <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI
>
> � <JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations
>
> � <JF> 3. Time Text Format
>
> � <JF> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9673
>
> � <JF> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20100513_cfc-websrt/
>
> � <JF> 4. Other business?
>
> � <MichaelC> scribe: silvia
>
> 1. Requirements Gathering (Update)
>
> � requirements have been gathered at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media
>
> � Janina(?): we should go through and make sure we have covered all the requirements
>
> � � structure that was given before isn't fully represented
>
> � Markku: made architectural proposal to avoid classes
>
> � Judy: emails and minutes should be analysed for what is still missing
>
> � Janina: we should distribute actions for each area
>
> � JF: unsure what further to do
>
> � Judy: would be helpful to go through actions from last time
>
> � � then figure out what's the best way to make use of this material
>
> � � get thoughtful about crossvetting the material
>
> � � cross-reviewed and well-vetted requirements list that should represent a consensus
>
> � JF: I'm almost hearing a spreadsheet
>
> � Judy: I'm less thinking about the format, but about how to approach the evaluation
>
> � � at some point a checklist would be good
>
> � � but I'm not too worried about the format right now
>
> � � we should this in this meeting: 1. action check, 2. review, 3. what to do next
>
> � JF: we're also missing the input from the IBM people on audio descriptions
>
> � Sean: technical requirements seem to be still missing
>
> � � there is a lot of material more generally
>
> � Mike: we should probably do a formal walk-through of the actions and then see what's missing
>
> � <MichaelC> Media issues and actions
>
> � action-27?
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-27 -- John Foliot to create requirements a11y media accessibility document -- due 2010-05-05 -- OPEN
>
> � <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/27
>
> � <MichaelC> action-27: see http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-27 Create requirements a11y media accessibility document notes added
>
> � JF: I think that document is addressing action-27
>
> � <MichaelC> action-27: also see http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/MultimediaAccessibility; more historical and prose than
> � the formal actions
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-27 Create requirements a11y media accessibility document notes added
>
> � <MichaelC> close action-27
>
> � close action-27
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-27 Create requirements a11y media accessibility document closed
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-27 Create requirements a11y media accessibility document closed
>
> � action-29?
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-29 -- Sean Hayes to look into descriptive video requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN
>
> � <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/29
>
> � <MichaelC> action-29: added to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-29 Look into descriptive video requirements notes added
>
> � Sean: I think it's pretty much closed
>
> � � others should add to it
>
> � <MichaelC> close action-29
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-29 Look into descriptive video requirements closed
>
> � action-30?
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-30 -- Janina Sajka to look into structural navigation requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN
>
> � <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/30
>
> � Janina: not yet complete
> � ... give me another week
>
> � <MichaelC> action-30 due 19 May
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-30 Look into structural navigation requirements due date now 19 May
>
> � action-31?
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-31 -- Judy Brewer to follow up w/ Geoff on comprehensiveness of captioning requirements -- due
> � 2010-05-12 -- OPEN
>
> � <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/31
>
> � Judy: I did and pinged a few people during the week
>
> � � side-question to Geoff: do you have more that you want to add?
>
> � Geoff: it's mostly done - I have contributed comments from myself and colleagues at NCAM
>
> � � I want to go through requirements and use case section at the bottom
>
> � � I'd like to review that
>
> � <MichaelC> ACTION: Geoff to review use cases section of media requirements document [recorded in
> � http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
>
> � <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Review use cases section of media requirements document [on Geoff Freed - due
> � 2010-05-19].
>
> � <MichaelC> close action-31
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-31 Follow up w/ Geoff on comprehensiveness of captioning requirements closed
>
> � action-32?
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-32 -- Judy Brewer to follow up w/ Gunnar Hellstrom on comprehensiveness of secondary signed channel
> � requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN
>
> � <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/32
>
> � Judy: haven't done yet
>
> � � Gunnar is expert on signing, but I don't think he has looked at W3C work in HTML5 yet
>
> � � I wanted to give him an intro and walk him through it
>
> � � I want to try and do that within the next week
>
> � � plus there are some other experts I know who I want to point to this
>
> � � including a few colleagues
>
> � <MichaelC> action-32 due 19 May
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-32 Follow up w/ Gunnar Hellstrom on comprehensiveness of secondary signed channel requirements due
> � date now 19 May
>
> � action-34?
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-34 -- Sean Hayes to write transcript requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN
>
> � <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/34
>
> � <MichaelC> action-34: some work in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Accessibility_Requirements_of_Media
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-34 Write transcript requirements notes added
>
> � Sean: I haven't been through formulating bullet points, but have done basic work
>
> � <MichaelC> action-34 due 19 may
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-34 Write transcript requirements due date now 19 may
>
> � � would like another week
>
> � action-35?
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-35 -- Frank Olivier to write cues requirements -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN
>
> � <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/35
>
> � Mike: don't think he's done it
>
> � � somebody should ping him
>
> � action-36?
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-36 -- Janina Sajka to draft the message re date and media text spec to send to HTML WG -- due
> � 2010-05-12 -- OPEN
>
> � <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/36
>
> � Janina: done
>
> � <MichaelC> close action-36
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-36 Draft the message re date and media text spec to send to HTML WG closed
>
> � <janina> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20100513_cfc-websrt/results
>
> � � action complete by email and a call for concensus
>
> � <MichaelC> action-36: see http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20100513_cfc-websrt/results
>
> � <trackbot> ACTION-36 Draft the message re date and media text spec to send to HTML WG notes added
>
> � Judy: I have two gaps I want to mention
>
> � � 1. how much review have the requirements received from actual people with hearing or vision impairment?
>
> � � did the requirements list take into account requirements also for deaf-blind people?
>
> � Janina: I think we do because we specified a variety of alternatives and are not restricting channels
>
> � � people can pick two things at the same time
>
> � � it would be good though if somebody could double-check that
>
> � Michael: in the requirements document there are two sentences that directly address it
>
> � Judy: I'm not questioning whether we have individual requirements for this, but I'd like somebody who has real needs to
> � actually cross-ceck for comprehensiveness
>
> � � I have somebody on mind
>
> � JF: I don't know anyone who would have real-world experience from that perspective, so if you have somebody at hand,
> � that would be great
>
> � Judy: I'm hoping I can get somebody tomorrow - I will certainly try
>
> � Janina: I'd like to caution us on the issue of completeness - deaf-blind people have different requirements depending
> � on whether they had hearing or visual loss first
>
> � Judy: 2. a cross-check I want to do with a JTC-1 requirements list
>
> � � I want to look at that
>
> � � Clayton Lewis, Uni Collorado, could be a good person to add for review
>
> � <MichaelC> ACTION: Judy to organize a cross-check on requirements with JTC-1 user needs repository [recorded in
> � http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
>
> � <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Organize a cross-check on requirements with JTC-1 user needs repository [on Judy Brewer
> � - due 2010-05-19].
>
> � <MichaelC> ACTION: judy to seek deaf-blind representation in requirements gathering process [recorded in
> � http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action03]
>
> � <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Seek deaf-blind representation in requirements gathering process [on Judy Brewer - due
> � 2010-05-19].
>
> � Janina: we might be missing a cognitive dimension
>
> � � WCAG-2 - there is a requirement in Germany for having simple representations of Web pages
>
> � � we might want to have a simple (plain?) representation of text, too
>
> � Judy: any other gaps that occurred to people?
>
> � Janina: timescale modification - speed-up and slow-down
>
> � � I'll add it to the requirements list
>
> � Judy: have we covered acrhitectural requirements completely yet?
>
> � +q
>
> � <mhakkinen> uaag draft has text re timescale modification. based on DAISY experience.
>
> � Janina: Philip is attending a meeting on web audio api, which should be relevant to us, too
>
> � silvia: I still must read it, sorry
> � ... I am slightly concerned about the free-text being hard to parse
>
> � (?): the list at the bottom has all the discrete requirements extracted - the top sets the scene
>
> � JF: the hardest thing will be to see which requirements go towards the time stamp format, which towards the
> � presentation, which towards the html5 markup
>
> � <JF> Geoof
>
> � Geoff: I like what Sean did with creating a decent amount of context at the top before jumping into the requirements
>
> � Judy: that explanation is really useful - I was wondering if the discrete requirements should have come first and the
> � detailed descriptions later
>
> � � but this seems good
>
> � Janina: it seems there is a lot of value in a good requirements document
>
> � Judy: I'm curious what makes it easier for each of us to look through the list
>
> � � is anyone finding the current document numbing or has a suggestion to improve how to consume it
>
> � JF: how do we capture the requirement for a time stamp format
>
> � Geoff: I think timing text and readability of a format are not quite relevant here
>
> � Sean: it is a technical requirement to be able to update the screen quickly enough for good quality
>
> � � it is a technical as well as an authorial requiremnt
>
> � Judy: when I put requirements for other groups together, I've seen we had needs to motivating information
>
> � � we might need more background links
>
> � � do we want to plan for having motivating/explanatory information for the terse requiremnts?
>
> � � or is that too much additional work?
>
> � JF: I think it's getting too large already
>
> � <mhakkinen> mark has to go. bye
>
> � � the range of speed is a technical details that we may not need to limit - the technical need for the browser is that
> � we can speed up and slow down
>
> � Judy: it seems don't quite know where everything is going of our requirements - some into HTML5, some into a time stamp
> � format, some maybe elsewhere
>
> � Janina: it is part of what we should advise the HTML5 WG on is where these requirements should be met - and what should
> � in inside HTML5
>
> � � we may even find that existing specifications that address some requirements are incomplete, like when I found that
> � pitch retaining was not covered for speed changes in HTML5
>
> � Judy: I have a proposal for how we can go through vetting our list
>
> � � how about one more week or requirement collection
>
> � � then cross-reviews with other technologies over the following 2 weeks maybe
>
> � � maybe we should do cross-vetting and completeness checks now already
>
> � JF: I think we should just do that - we need to get going
>
> � � a perpetual discussion on requirements is not going to make progress on the spec
>
> � � maybe we can action everything that is needed to chunk it up next week and go from there?
>
> � Janina: I think we should be looking at that next week
>
> � � another week of gathering and cleaning up is good
>
> � � the Hypertext coordination group is very interested in our results
>
> � � they want us to present it in early June
>
> � � we should look at the different technologies that exist and where gaps may be from next week at the latest
>
> � � also we should identify how much more work is required so we can give the HMTL5 group a deadline for it
>
> � Eric: I think it would be good to talk about these things in the meeting, but it is important to start talking about
> � individual technical points in email, so we capture the details and get beyond the surface
>
> � Judy: do we have digital book / DAISY type requirements in it?
>
> � � Kenny dropped off
>
> � Janina: I don't know if we specifically have a book view of this
>
> � � Daisy are interested in using HTML5 for publishing
>
> � scribe: not sure if we are close to meeting that
>
> � � HTML5 is more about focus on youtube and radio etc type applications
>
> � Sean: certainly within DAISY we are interested to publish books in HTML5
>
> � � the line between books and Web documents is going to become more blurred
>
> � Eric: I have to agree with that - electronic book formats are already XHTML and some support HTML5 features
>
> � silvia: it will be important to see what limitations DAISY sees in publishing DAISY documents in HTML5
>
> � Sean: the navigation possibilities in DAISY are the main difference
>
> � JF: we have 3 other items on the agenda
>
> � � we will take another 25 min or so
>
> � item: 2. Integration of 2 Draft Proposals into Draft Spec by Editor
>
> � JF: are we there with what Ian has specified with these proposals?
>
> � � we've done a lot of work there - are we good with that, or do we let that go?
>
> � Janina: are we satisfied with the removal of WebSRT or is there more we want to address?
>
> � � I wanted to make sure it is clear that we didn't want to have it in the spec, but not stop development on it
>
> � JF: I am concretely talking about our 2 documents on the wiki
>
> � � we were leaning towards track, some were concerned
>
> � � Ian is flying with a changed version of our proposal
>
> � � where is our comfort level with that?
>
> � � do we still need a group resolution on this?
>
> � Eric: the track API came out of our group and the form it is in now has been up for a couple of months without comment
> � in our wiki
>
> � � it seems to me that it is in fine shape to be in the standrad
>
> � Judy: throughout the entire process of html5 there will be a variety of times when the spec will be in a transitional
> � state
>
> � � my impression is that there is a lot of churn going on on-list and off-list wrt what accessible media format will
> � prevail in HTML5
>
> � � what I'm hearing from some folks is that the requirements collection is really helpful for first-time people looking
> � at media a11y
>
> � JF: my question specifically is that we had 2 proposals in the wiki that we had in good shape and that we wanted to
> � support
>
> � � by and large
>
> � � now we stepped back to requirements analysis - maybe our previous work was too ad-hoc
>
> � � now we have built the requirements list to make sure we haven't missed anything
>
> � � what if we go through the list and discover that <track> does not satisfy some of the requirements
>
> � � where do we sit wrt to these proposals?
>
> � � do we wait until we finished the requirements collection to evaluate them?
>
> � � or do we let them continue to move forward?
>
> � Judy:
>
> � � I feel it is hard to judge stuff when the requirements are not clear
>
> � Eric: I honestly think that the track API is orthogonal to the things we are looking at right now
>
> � � it's all about providing API access to the structure of the media file
>
> � � we may decide that we have additional needs
>
> � � I would be extremely surprised if any of the requirements would conflict with the track API
>
> � � also, when something ends up in the spec, it doesn't mean it has to stay there
>
> � � if we later find a fundamental flaw, we can still change it
>
> � � until the spec is done, nothing is written in stone
>
> � silvia: those two proposals are the past - it might be better if we spend our time on checking our requirements with
> � the text that has actually gone into the spec
>
> � � rather than with the two proposals that were developed by us, but not officially put forward to the HTML5 WG
>
> � JF: my question is really what to do with the 2 proposals
>
> � Janina: we should compare our requirements against our technologies
>
> � JF: so we will finish the requirements document and then move forward
>
> � Judy: so we will do the cross-checking and vetting after another week of requirements gathering
>
> � JF: we will let the proposals sit until we have all the requirements together
>
> � Eric: we need to use the requirements to judge the technologies
>
> � item: 3. Time Text Format
>
> � JF: the WebSRT format has now been removed from the spec
>
> � � we need to analyse whether WebSRT is the right format
>
> � scribe: we should probably defer the discussion, since we're almost out of time
>
> � Janina: given our concerns last week, are we satisfied with what happened or do we need to see something else happen?
>
> � Judy: my impression is that what happens satisfied our concerns
>
> � JF: I think so too
>
> � � we will have to spend some time discussing about formats
>
> � � we did say at the F2F that support of SRT and some form of TTML would be the best
>
> � � but we need to discuss this further
>
> � � maybe have email discussions and discuss in meeting next week
>
> � item: 4. Other business?
>
> � JF: doesn't seem so
>
> � � thanks everybody for attending!
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> � [NEW] ACTION: Geoff to review use cases section of media requirements document [recorded in
> � http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
> � [NEW] ACTION: Judy to organize a cross-check on requirements with JTC-1 user needs repository [recorded in
> � http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
> � [NEW] ACTION: judy to seek deaf-blind representation in requirements gathering process [recorded in
> � http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action03]
>
> � [End of minutes]
> � � __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Found Scribe: silvia
> Found Date: 12 May 2010
> People with action items: geoff judy
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, � Phone: �+1.443.300.2200
> � � � � � � � �sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>
> Chair, Open Accessibility � � � janina@a11y.org
> Linux Foundation � � � � � � � �http://a11y.org
>
> Chair, Protocols & Formats
> Web Accessibility Initiative � �http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 02:00:24 UTC