See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 19 August 2014
<AWK> Chair: AWK
<alistair> Running a couple of minutes late...
<AWK> Scribe: Bruce
<alistair> I'm having problems phoning in...
<alistair> Is anyone else having problems with the phone bridge
Please refresh on survey, should have six replies
Discussion if we turn over comment or other...
AWK: no burning disagreement
MC: not an approval review, so less formal
<Wilco> +1
AWK: question to dave 14/20
David: Did study for Canada, its ballpark figure from experience
David Grove came up with 18% in his report
MC: number is soft
hopefully, will increase over time
MC: with more processing power, AI, more machine testability is feasible
Wilco, +1 percentage can only go up
\
AWK: Is candaian report public?
MC: David will ask
AWK: Would be nice for citation to justify automatic evaluation being between 13-20 %
We have two studies, better than subjective expert approximations
David: Parts of study are pretty candid, esp. with regard to some products
May be able to post excerpts
AWK; Prolly take a while to get approval, Shadi can just go ahead
MC: Need to be clear that tools can help, but not do work
bruce: wrt Alistair comment
Alistair suggested new name change
Bruce asks if content just needs tuning
MC: Both Qs go to ERT, they can decide
AWK: Will make Shadi aware of our comments, take under advisement. Back to us if more questions or clarification or more harmonize response
MC: confirms this is already for public review with relatively short turn around
AWK: Consensus to share survey results
AWK sent email while on call
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140805/results#x2652
4. Captions for video in foreign language
AWK: No need to debate too long, still may not have definitive answer
AWK summarizes question
David: Have folks seen thread
from public email?
... Deaf advocates often feel strongly about issue
<cstrobbe> See thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014JulSep/0163.html
Mixing translation with transaction is an error
Cleanest rule is to follow language of speaker
Providing multiple track can lead to difficult if subtle problems
AWK: Simplest is for captions to
be in language of video
... Does not address needs of Deaf who are not speakers of
language
David: Lack of subtitles (translation) issue for many people, not PWD in particular
AWK: Example, how do I make
French video for English language audience?
... If I address needs of English speakers, have subtitles, but
subtitles miss other auditory information
David: Trying to channel Loretta, others would miss things as well.
AWK: SC includes requirement for non-spoken information.
Marc: Discussion seems
tricky
... English captions different than translation
Often English language captions just say [GERMAN] when language changes
English language film where someone speaks foreign language is pretty common
Caption should not be translated
cstrobbe: example of Japanese video, why would only English portion be subtitled?
Could just be languge in video
intent of video is important
Mike Elledge: It comes down to author intent
If no translation in default presentation, then no requirement to translate
This is for where film has portion of foreign language
Mike: Issue is more for fully
dubbed video
... What about blind and audio description?
WCAG required audio description for prerecorded media
AWK: Different requirements for AD, and user profile
sub/Mike: Issue/Wilco: Issue/
Mark: Have to look at intent.
Example of Japanese video, non-spoken audio part needs to have captions in Japanese
<Wilco> +1
WCAG cannot require translation, could not be a failure
AWK: Agree, but WCAG does not clearly address issue of dubbed content
Response could be captions need to be in language of video
And if subtitles are provided, they need to be for broadest audience possible
Marc: Issue is foreign language video for English speaking audience
If we remind folks about Japanese captions, need to remind about Japanese AD
<marcjohlic> +1
cstrobbe: If the video is dubbed, the language of the captions need to follow the language of the dubbing
If language on film changes, captions reflects language heard
AWK: Offers to rewrite based on feed back
Will come back next week
RESOLUTION: Leave open based on conversation
<marcjohlic> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/G93
<marcjohlic> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/G87
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G87.html
Wilco: Raises issue with accuracy/completeness in G93/87
<David> +1 on accuracy check
Wilco: Failure tests need to include accuracy
Other common captioning expectations (speaker identification, non obstruction) also absent from test procedure
AWK: Do we recall debate?
David: Accuracy important and implied if not explict
Techniques like Google automated captions not sufficient
Jon: Don't for important sound effects (F8)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/F8
F8: Failure of Success Criterion 1.2.2 due to captions omitting some dialogue or important sound effects
AWK: Don't want to have success conflicting conflict with Failure
Could resolve by adding F8 as related technique for each?
<David> We should probably be consistent in test procedure...
Can we put intent into test procedure
<Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask if best practices in SC ?
Bruce: thinks inaccuracy is a failure
Obscuring faces is not a failure, just a bad practice
Jon: These are mapped to both live and pre-recorded
Would be better if expectations for live were easier than prerecorded
Live captions will have more errors
AWK: Good live captions different than good recorded captions
Hard to capture language
Wilco: Gives example of two speaker, other text on screen
<jon_avila> not obscure a crawler?
So bad placement could be failure
AWK: Context makes difference, example sports program
Marc: Trying to separate point, F8 seems good to capture bad quality
Missing speaker identification and obscuring other text on-screen not reflected as failure
AWK: Change test procedure, rather than check captions are visible
something like check that caption meet WCAG definition for captions
David: Check that captions capture the content?
People just turning on YouTube captions need to be clearly insufffient
Also, testing live content not really an issue, since its live
By the time people are evaluating, as a matter of practice, captions are prerecorded so expectation can and should be high
AWK: Need to be able to fail practice for live video, example CNN or other live news
David: Language like "represent the content" may sufficiently flexible to reflect industry norms and practices
Phrasing as simple as "caption accurately reflect content" gets at difference between live and prerecordd
Marc: Still want to get at
obscuring piece
... add "without obscuring important information"
<marcjohlic> Check that captions (of all dialogue and important sounds) are visible and accurately represent the content without obscuring any important information.
+1
<marcjohlic> alt: Check that captions (of all dialogue and important sounds) are visible and accurately represent the content and do not obscure any important information.
AWK polls for any objection, none heard
AWK: Need to figure out where to make these changes
<AWK> Possible places for change: g87, g93, SM11, SM12, F8
<AWK> others
<AWK> ?
<scribe> ACTION: marcjohlic to create wiki page documenting all places for this edit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'marcjohlic'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
<marcjohlic> mjohlic
<scribe> ACTION: mjohlic to create wiki page documenting all places for this edit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-269 - Create wiki page documenting all places for this edit [on Marc Johlic - due 2014-08-26].
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140805/results#xq6
AWK: Material is challenging for multiple consumers
This survey item is offering a chance for group members to offer thoughts and suggestions about ways to improve these documents, or to offer thoughts about what problems they experience personally or hear about from others. It is also appropriate to indicate what you like about the documents.
Issue from last week is that you cannot tell if technique is advisory or requirement
The issue from last week is that you cannot tell if technique is advisory or requirement
When you are only looking at a particular technique
Also, cannot tell if a technique is part of an AND or OR processs
People don't understand how important test techniques are
AWK summaries comments from survey, some detailed, so quick
sub /detailed, so quick/detailed, some quick/
<jon_avila> I still see a lot of people who think that if you don't meet a sufficient techniques it is a failure of a SC.
<David> Agree...
Bruce clarifies that editorial work important to consumption
AWK: New current drafts trying to clarify that techniques are informative, not requirements
<scribe> New boiler plate elevates disclaimer, but template ripe for discussion
AWK invites discussion
AWK: How should we approach this? What would you do with unlimited control and money?
<jon_avila> perhaps organization by media type, forms, tables, etc.
David: Better search capacity. People remember a couple words, sentence, tag, but can't find it again
Wilco: If you don't know title, can't really expect to find technique
Tags in technique could be very useful
<jon_avila> +1
<Mike_Elledge> +1
<AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140724/G83.html
<David> +1
Example is one that was rewritten recently
First heading is "Important Information about Techniques"
AWK: Is there a better way to do address this issue?
Alistair: would be great to have techniques related to tag as developer
So in IMG different techniques could be available in authoring tool
Describes how could work in practice as a developer
All part of an IDE, tool extract information from techniques documents
Would take a lot of rejigger for tools to scrape our docs
Jon: People have nav bar blindness, just moving makes little difference
Nice for aggregation of resources, listserve, blogs, forums
Not getting these as submitted techniques
AWK: Should people be able to comment on techniques?
Presentation is very plain, might be turning some folks off
Might be good to pull in people with great design skills
Great design prolly hard for volunteers, but WG members may have this skill set
David: Reminds us that Shawn Henry address many presentation issues back in 2007
David clarifies that this was WCAG proper and How to Meet only
AWK: So, how to proceed? Need specific proposals on what to change.
Could have survey for outside of working group, call for suggestions
Calls for volunteers on how to solicit feedback
Q to MC about process
MC: Wording and expectation setting could be tricky
AWK: Looking for brainstorm wrt public feedback
David: WET folks have expertise
Might even do a little mock up
AWK: Need to figure out what we want
Don't want design work until we have more concrete ideas
Not even up for wire frames at this point
What do people like?
What don't they like?
What issues are people facing?
Marc will ask some suggestions / feedback from a couple of design folks on my end.
AWK: Ask around, come back to
group, feedback to AWK.
... Out of time most unfortunately
Alistar has been kept waiting
Alistair: Responsive design is bad trigger word
Thinks he has addressed issue
addressed issues raised before.
Alistair and AWK concur that processing by working group takes took long
Alistair: First survey went through without comment, request new survey from scratch
Old title and re-directs cause confussion
AWK: We will get to this soon, but prolly not next week
Technique will have to wait for March edition
<Mike_Elledge> bye all!
<AWK> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/accuratecy/accuracy/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: bbailey Found Scribe: Bruce Default Present: +31.30.239.aaaa, [FordMotor], +1.617.766.aabb, AWK, Wilco, Bruce_Bailey, David_MacDonald, Michael_Cooper, cstrobbe, Marc_Johlic, +1.703.637.aacc, Kenny, jon_avila, +44.172.172.aadd, alistair Present: +31.30.239.aaaa [FordMotor] +1.617.766.aabb AWK Wilco Bruce_Bailey David_MacDonald Michael_Cooper cstrobbe Marc_Johlic +1.703.637.aacc Kenny jon_avila +44.172.172.aadd alistair Regrets: Sailesh James_N Loretta Kathy_W. Found Date: 19 Aug 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/08/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: marcjohlic mjohlic WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]