Standards Working Group meeting 12/10/12
Mark Hakkinen (chair)
Neil Soiffer (scribe)
Minutes from the last meeting will be ready within a day
Julie on reporting goals in April
Julie: about ½ through DAIGRAM program year. Need to show progress by April. This WG is supposed to advise, so we don’t have deliverables.
Ahn : one concrete goal is to update the current content model for image map data.
Mark: perhaps this could work for multimodal data in the future
Julie: Last time, Madeleine talked about crosswalk mapping from APIP to the DIAGRAM content model. This could be a concrete deliverable.
Madeleine : Already did this for “Access to all” and doing it for APIP is not a big difference.
Ron: Can this be done for Poet?
Madeleine : I can do part, but not all of the work.
Ron: It is hard for interactive work. It is called “custom interactions”.
Madeleine : Yes this is hard.
Ron: The UI part of APIP is not well defined. Vendors want to support their highly interactive content.
Mark to Madeleine : Any ideas on how to address this?
Madeleine : I don’t think APIP can address.
Ron: LTI has this but UI is not well defined in APIP. Maybe we need to add to crosswalk “undefined”. States demand scaffold learning, so we need to address this.
Madeleine : LTI doesn’t have accessibility support. IMS hasn’t heard from members that it is important.
Ahn : we have lots of opportunities to produce crosswalks, so we need to prioritize what should be done first.
Ron: APIP is not adopted in the rest of the world – US only.
Mark: any alternatives?
Mark: is there anything this WG can do to provide input to the APIP WG to help alignment with APIP.
Ron: Because existing model doesn’t work for ACT, they are looking into a derivative of APIP.
Mark: I’d like to propose a special focused topic WG call to specifically look at Madeleine’s Access for all crosswalk and then dive into the APIP crosswalk work and then provide info to the APIP WG.
Ahn: We should make sure we touch on all of the IMS standards that are relevant.
Update on W3C longdesc and describedAt
Jeff: contacted co-chairs WCAG Protocols and Formats WG about timelines for londdesc and describedAt. Extension spec for longdesc to formalize what is in HTML4 will take a year (end of 2013), with most work by mid-summer. describedAt will be included included in ARIA 1.1, which is scheduled for 2016. That syncs with HTML5.1 timeline. Markus and George had previously said that timeline doesn’t work for DIAGRAM’s needs. Longdesc only works for images, and we need something that works for other things.
Mark: I’ve seen that longdesc is being pitched as “obsolete but conforming”. What does that mean?
Jeff: Checkers can flag longdesc as something that shouldn’t be there, but should not flag it as invalid.
Mark: That’s a non-starter. Is the one year time too long for EPUB?
Jeff: I don’t think so. One year is not that long. There is some discussion of move to longdesc to aria, but it doesn’t make sense just to change the name. The functionality should be improved. That’s being discussed.
Jeff: Longdesc transition period is five years or so, so the extension spec just makes bridges the gap until a better solution occurs, and that solution will have an even longer transition period.
Rob: A big problem with rendering agents is that they don’t support longdesc. Users want a solution that works. This needs to be a high priority to get resolved.
Jeff: Since Markus isn’t on the call, we should ask Markus: “given the timelines, what is the best thing for IDPF to do to deal with longdesc/describedAt”.
Action Item: Jeff to write to Markus for clarification.
W3C and Digital Publishing conference Feb 11 & 12 in New York
George, Gerado, ETS, and Neil are submitting position papers. Deadline to submit is today.
CSUN is coming in March
Mark: I’ll be there talking about haptic interaction.
Many others said that they will be there.
Mark: Should we have an informal meeting there?
Julie: Benetech will have a hospitality suite and we can use that as a meeting room.
Ed: Can this be after hours to avoid conflict with CSUN talks.
Mark Horney: I’m a PI on MeTRC project. Should I go to CSUN?
Mark H: CEC or CSUN?
Ron: CEC has almost no accessibility – go to CSUN.
eTernity Initiative for Educational Textbook Standards
Madeleine: Within the ISO group is an effort to standardize number of features specific to learning, education and training. China and Korea have competing standards, and Europeans have said that they want to figure out what is needed and are thinking of making their own proposal. IEEE is also looking into this.
Neil: does this build on EPUB or is this an alternative to EPUB?
Madeleine : don’t know.
Jeff: how does Korean and Chinese proposal deal with image description?
Madeleine : Don’t know, but I’ll try to find out.
Ron: This is about highly structured content. Textbooks or tutorial/interactive lessons.
Mark: do we know anyone on the eternity project?
Madeleine : I might. I’ll have to check.
Mark: I see Jan Pawlowsky’s name on the contact list and I’ll talk to him next week because I’ll be at his University in Norway.
Mark: I’ll schedule a call in January where Madeleine presents her crosswalk. I wiill take the exact date to the list. Call after that would be a “regular” call about W3C.
Follow-up note from Mark Hakkinen:
Update to the minutes regarding the eTernity project. Since this afternoon’s call, I have exchanged a series of emails with Jan Pawlowski of the University of Jyväskylä in Finland (not Norway as in the minutes). I have a meeting scheduled with Jan on 18 December in Jyväskylä. On the agenda will be ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36, developments in Asia, and potential collaboration. I will update the list after the meeting.