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