IRC log of tt on 2022-03-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:01:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
16:01:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/17-tt-irc
16:01:08 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:01:09 [Zakim]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
16:01:37 [atai]
atai has joined #tt
16:07:08 [nigel]
Present: Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Nigel
16:07:12 [nigel]
Chair: Gary, Nigel
16:07:26 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
16:07:58 [atsushi]
present+
16:08:02 [nigel]
Regrets: Pierre
16:08:19 [nigel]
Present+ Atsushi
16:10:28 [nigel]
Topic: This meeting
16:10:53 [nigel]
Atsushi: Can we cover the Charter and TPAC topics first?
16:12:32 [nigel]
Nigel: [iterates through meeting]
16:12:40 [nigel]
s/]/ agenda]
16:12:48 [nigel]
.. Any other business?
16:12:58 [nigel]
Topic: Rechartering
16:13:20 [nigel]
Atsushi: AC review for the Charter is open until next Wednesday.
16:13:30 [nigel]
.. All the AC reps for today's attendees have responded.
16:13:43 [nigel]
.. But some TTWG participants' AC reps have not yet responded, so I'm reminding them
16:13:49 [nigel]
.. via the minutes.
16:13:55 [nigel]
Nigel: Noted, thank you.
16:14:24 [nigel]
.. I think the situation re support and objections is the same as last week for objections (1),
16:14:30 [nigel]
.. and more support.
16:14:33 [nigel]
Atsushi: Yes
16:14:48 [nigel]
Gary: How does the formal objection [missed]?
16:15:02 [nigel]
Atsushi: On the part we wrote about implementation requirements.
16:15:21 [nigel]
s/[missed]/affect chartering process
16:15:39 [nigel]
.. There is one request to change for two independent implementations.
16:15:51 [nigel]
Gary: Can we proceed with that or do we need to resolve the objection before we can proceed?
16:16:10 [nigel]
Atsushi: We need to resolve the FO before we proceed. I believe we have no response from the AC rep though.
16:16:16 [nigel]
Nigel: That's correct, no response yet.
16:16:22 [nigel]
.. I will send a reminder.
16:17:06 [nigel]
.. It is not clear _how_ we will resolve the objection!
16:17:20 [nigel]
Gary: Yes, that's the difficult part. From a process part, it's easy!
16:17:53 [nigel]
Topic: TPAC
16:18:17 [nigel]
Atsushi: We really need to respond about the TPAC questions - on-site/off-site/hybrid.
16:18:28 [nigel]
.. It's a reminder for Chairs to respond to the WBS.
16:18:53 [nigel]
Nigel: Almost everyone has not responded to the email question I sent out.
16:19:04 [nigel]
Gary: I'm probably not going to travel for it.
16:19:35 [nigel]
Nigel: OK I will extrapolate from me, Andreas and Gary and send a response, albeit an inaccurate one!
16:19:41 [nigel]
.. I think that will have to do.
16:20:13 [nigel]
.. What's the response date?
16:20:16 [nigel]
Gary: March 28th
16:20:35 [nigel]
Andreas: Pierre had some comments last time, which can be taken into account.
16:20:48 [nigel]
Nigel: I didn't know how to process his comments in terms of a survey response.
16:21:02 [nigel]
Gary: He said it was too soon to decide, which is why I gave my response.
16:21:21 [nigel]
Andreas: Yes, if I had to decide now I would say no.
16:21:29 [nigel]
Nigel: Nobody is being asked to decide now.
16:21:42 [nigel]
Cyril: In my case, I could travel. I went to a conference 2 weeks ago, it was good!
16:21:53 [nigel]
.. It's a lot of ifs, but if there is an agenda, and nothing changes, I would be able to go.
16:22:00 [nigel]
Nigel: That's my position as well.
16:22:15 [nigel]
.. OK we have a mix, which I can use. Thanks everyone!
16:22:51 [nigel]
Atsushi: Not for me but for the Chairs to decide if we need an offline venue and if so, how large.
16:23:01 [nigel]
.. For me, I suppose it will be difficult to travel from Japan even in September.
16:23:13 [nigel]
.. So for now I should say regrets for on-site, but I could join somehow remotely.
16:23:35 [nigel]
Nigel: OK, thank you.
16:23:47 [nigel]
.. I think that's almost everybody.
16:24:13 [nigel]
.. Gary, either of us can do this, do you have a preference?
16:24:17 [nigel]
Gary: I'm happy to take it on.
16:24:20 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you!
16:24:53 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC HRM
16:25:03 [nigel]
Nigel: In Pierre's absence, quick update.
16:25:11 [nigel]
.. We've merged most of the open pull requests.
16:25:29 [nigel]
.. There's one more where Pierre and I have been going round the loop on introductory text.
16:25:39 [nigel]
.. Please take a look at https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/43 otherwise
16:25:48 [nigel]
.. I think we're nearly there so it may get merged very soon.
16:26:09 [nigel]
.. There is one open HR issue which we tried to resolve, but was reopened.
16:26:38 [nigel]
.. I think that's a misunderstanding and am hoping that the Privacy & Security reviewer who raised the issue
16:26:45 [nigel]
.. will agree, after further thought.
16:28:40 [nigel]
.. I think we should consider renaming the defined term "glyph" which doesn't carry it's usual meaning,
16:28:53 [nigel]
.. in the HRM. I think this is a cause of technical misunderstandings that we can mitigate.
16:29:17 [nigel]
.. Aside from all that, when we've merged all these PRs the plan is as discussed for me to send Wide Review comms.
16:29:49 [nigel]
.. If anyone has any suggestions for alternative names for glyph, please let us know.
16:30:12 [nigel]
Gary: Should we also add a note that the font does not need to be loaded?
16:30:28 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes, I think PR #43 adds text that explicitly says that no external resources need to be loaded.
16:30:31 [nigel]
Gary: Perfect.
16:30:54 [nigel]
Nigel: Any more on IMSC HRM?
16:30:59 [nigel]
[nothing more]
16:31:11 [nigel]
Topic: DAPT REQs
16:31:35 [nigel]
Nigel: As promised Cyril and I have completed a first ED of the WG Note for the requirements for DAPT.
16:31:55 [nigel]
-> https://w3c.github.io/dapt-reqs/ Draft ED Note for DAPT REQs
16:32:39 [nigel]
.. I was wondering if we could and should adopt the same working mode as for IMSC-HRM where
16:32:48 [nigel]
.. a PR merge to the default branch triggers publication on /TR
16:32:52 [nigel]
Cyril: Yes that'd be great
16:32:56 [nigel]
Gary: Ship it!
16:33:03 [nigel]
Nigel: Atsushi, can we do that?
16:33:35 [nigel]
Atsushi: I have not studied yet about publication rules for WG Notes so let me check the document about draft note.
16:33:54 [nigel]
.. DNOE. I believe it is easier than pubishing FPWD but I'm not sure what we need.
16:34:22 [nigel]
Nigel: We can make a proposal and resolution.
16:34:34 [nigel]
Atsushi: I believe we do need that, but I need to check the Process document for what to do next.
16:34:47 [nigel]
.. In any case I propose to ask for consensus here.
16:35:03 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes, let's do 2 proposals.
16:35:35 [nigel]
PROPOSAL: Publish the Draft Note of DAPT requirements on /TR as a WG Note
16:35:52 [atsushi]
DNOTE / draft note -> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#draft-note
16:36:14 [nigel]
PROPOSAL: On merging pull requests to the main branch of the repo, trigger automatic publication of a WG Note as an update.
16:36:33 [nigel]
Nigel: Any questions or comments on those proposals?
16:36:43 [nigel]
Andreas: The first proposal is to publish the draft as a WG Note as it is now?
16:36:49 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes
16:36:58 [nigel]
Cyril: As an Editor's Draft?
16:37:24 [nigel]
Andreas: And the second one is for automatic republishing?
16:37:48 [nigel]
.. I raised an issue about accessibility, which we should consider before publication.
16:37:55 [nigel]
Nigel: I didn't see that yet.
16:39:23 [nigel]
Andreas: The image should have an accessible equivalent for screen readers, and the table has some problems.
16:39:52 [nigel]
Cyril: The screen reader says the names of the layer and shape when you hover over.
16:40:02 [nigel]
Nigel: That doesn't sound good - it may need an aria label.
16:40:15 [nigel]
Cyril: I didn't realise it is clickable.
16:40:21 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes it takes you to the spec text about it.
16:40:30 [nigel]
Cyril: Oh wow. We should add a note about that.
16:40:54 [nigel]
.. We should open issues about the Editor's Note so we can reference them. I can do that now?
16:40:57 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes please go ahead.
16:41:10 [nigel]
Cyril: We should address those but I don't see them as blockers to publication.
16:42:16 [nigel]
Nigel: Andreas, I don't know why the table isn't accessible, I just used standard Respec.
16:42:24 [nigel]
.. If you can add more detail it would be helpful.
16:42:40 [nigel]
Andreas: Maybe you can try it and see if it says what you expect. I don't know if an "X" is meaningful.
16:42:48 [nigel]
.. It would be good to fix that before publication.
16:43:22 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay, Andreas, you would like to see this fixed before publication.
16:43:33 [nigel]
Andreas: If we publish this and advertise it, I think it should be fixed before.
16:43:49 [nigel]
Nigel: I will amend the proposal
16:44:03 [nigel]
PROPOSAL: Publish the Draft Note of DAPT requirements on /TR as a WG Note after issue #4 has been resolved
16:44:35 [nigel]
Nigel: I think this amended proposal will not make any difference to timelines because our 2 week decision review policy
16:45:00 [nigel]
.. should give enough time - oh actually, the pull request needs its own 2 weeks, so maybe that's not quite right.
16:45:21 [nigel]
.. Anyway, I agree we should resolve that.
16:46:09 [nigel]
Atsushi: We may be able to do these in parallel.
16:46:26 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes, we should. I may be able to open a pull request for this tomorrow morning.
16:46:33 [nigel]
Atsushi: It's up to you.
16:46:38 [nigel]
Nigel: Okay, any more on the proposals?
16:46:42 [nigel]
.. Any objections?
16:46:54 [nigel]
No objections
16:47:06 [nigel]
RESOLUTION: Publish the Draft Note of DAPT requirements on /TR as a WG Note after issue #4 has been resolved
16:47:38 [nigel]
RESOLUTION: On merging pull requests to the main branch of the repo, trigger automatic publication of a WG Note as an update.
16:47:49 [nigel]
Nigel: Thank you.
16:48:07 [nigel]
.. Obviously please do raise issues as normal if you would like any changes to the document.
16:48:29 [nigel]
.. Thank you Andreas for raising those issues.
16:48:46 [nigel]
Cyril: What does it mean for writing a specification against the requirements?
16:48:54 [nigel]
.. Can we start working on an ED for a FPWD?
16:49:54 [nigel]
Nigel: Yes I don't see why not.
16:50:19 [nigel]
.. We must also validate these requirements.
16:50:32 [nigel]
.. Obviously any changes to the requirements might have impacts on the specification.
16:50:48 [nigel]
Cyril: I will start working on an Editor's draft, which we can finalise later.
16:50:57 [nigel]
Nigel: Great, thank you.
16:51:15 [nigel]
.. I think I should write a Chair's blog post about the requirements document to try to get as much review input as possible.
16:51:27 [nigel]
.. I've already shared it with some contacts, and would encourage everyone else to as well.
16:51:53 [nigel]
Topic: Behavior with controls, particularly non-native controls, overlap w3c/webvtt#503
16:52:12 [nigel]
Gary: I don't think we will completely cover this today but I think that's fine. It's a big topic.
16:52:34 [nigel]
.. Background: the question arises from when there are captions at the bottom of the display area. What happens
16:52:45 [nigel]
.. when the user interacts with the video player and the controls are shown.
16:52:58 [nigel]
.. The controls can obscure the captions, which can be problematic from an accessibility standpoint,
16:53:04 [nigel]
.. for those that depend on the captions.
16:53:12 [nigel]
github: https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/503
16:53:36 [nigel]
Gary: WebVTT right now with native controls has a mechanism to say that the captions should rerender to account for the native
16:53:38 [nigel]
.. control bar.
16:53:48 [nigel]
.. But then how do you handle this with a non-native control bar?
16:53:59 [nigel]
.. Also the behaviour potentially has bugs because it can cause cues to reorder,
16:54:03 [nigel]
.. which could be confusing to the user.
16:54:51 [nigel]
Nigel: The bug part needs to be fixed, because displaying lines out of order can't be right.
16:54:58 [nigel]
Gary: I think it is to spec as written now.
16:55:10 [nigel]
.. It's an issue if you have 2 cues, one for each line, instead of a 2 line cue.
16:55:34 [nigel]
.. If only the second line gets obscured but the first can be positioned normally, then the second one gets moved and ends up above the first one.
16:55:54 [nigel]
Nigel: That's 2 cues rather than 1 cue with a line break in it?
16:56:00 [atai]
q+
16:56:37 [nigel]
Gary: it's 2 cues with each line in a separate cue rather than 1 cue with a break in it.
16:56:39 [nigel]
ack at
16:56:50 [nigel]
Andreas: I second that this is an important issue.
16:57:10 [nigel]
.. I encountered it with subtitles for audio only, and in some browsers the control bar never disappears.
16:57:16 [cyril]
q+
16:57:23 [nigel]
.. Then the WebVTT cues can be permanently obscured by the control bar.
16:57:31 [nigel]
.. I did not investigate if that is spec conformant.
16:57:37 [nigel]
Gary: With an audio element?
16:57:47 [nigel]
Andreas: With a video element pointing to audio content.
16:57:53 [nigel]
Gary: Interesting that the controls are always visible.
16:58:12 [nigel]
Andreas: The question on the solution part is if it is for the HTML spec or for the WebVTT spec?
16:58:30 [nigel]
Gary: I'd argue for both because there's the reordering behaviour and also can you represent native controls
16:58:42 [nigel]
.. so that the captions don't overlap - that may be for the HTML spec.
16:58:47 [nigel]
s/native/non-native
16:58:48 [nigel]
ack c
16:59:12 [nigel]
Cyril: I don't know if this is true for all players, but some of the Netflix players reduce the size of the viewport when controls appear.
16:59:16 [nigel]
q+
16:59:32 [nigel]
Gary: You shrink the text area?
16:59:44 [nigel]
Cyril: Yes, it temporarily squishes until the controls disappear.
16:59:53 [nigel]
.. This makes the text move.
17:00:17 [nigel]
ack n
17:00:32 [nigel]
Nigel: Some BBC players do the same thing as what Cyril said, but...
17:00:48 [nigel]
... our newer UX design puts the controls in the vertical centre, so that doesn't work any more!
17:02:10 [nigel]
.. Some time ago I suggested an API for saying where not to put captions.
17:02:20 [nigel]
.. This is a real problem - it's not just controls, it can be other overlays too.
17:02:48 [atsushi]
+1 on issue ;)
17:03:28 [nigel]
SUMMARY: Issue discussed and recognised, applies to all caption formats.
17:03:32 [nigel]
Topic: Meeting close
17:04:17 [nigel]
Nigel: Thanks everyone. Next time we meet the UTC time will be different, and the meeting will
17:04:33 [nigel]
.. be at the usual local time for all regular participants except Atsushi, for whom it will be 1 hour earlier.
17:04:51 [nigel]
Atsushi: I heard that the US will not have DST from next year.
17:05:09 [nigel]
Gary: Yes the Senate passed it but it still has to go through the House and the President.
17:05:23 [nigel]
Nigel: OK, thank you. [adjourns meeting]
17:05:40 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:05:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/17-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:06:53 [nigel]
s/a process part/a process point of view
17:08:44 [nigel]
scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:09:05 [nigel]
Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/03/03-tt-minutes.html
17:09:10 [nigel]
Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/212
17:09:14 [nigel]
zakim, end meeting
17:09:14 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, atsushi
17:09:16 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:09:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/17-tt-minutes.html Zakim
17:09:19 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
17:09:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt
17:09:42 [nigel]
rrsagent, excuse us
17:09:42 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items