search

IIIF / trc

Technical Review Committee issue review
Apache License 2.0
1 stars 1 forks source link

Recipes 26, 64 and 65: Table of contents with A/V #42

Open glenrobson opened 4 years ago

glenrobson commented 4 years ago

Links

This pull request includes 3 very closely related recipes:

Table of contents for A/V content

Table of Contents for Multiple A/V files on a Single Canvas

Table of Contents for Multiple A/V files on Multiple Canvases

Background and Summary

These three recipes introduce the table of contents with A/V material and also discusses the different ways to represent A/V material either as one canvas or multiple canvases. As part of the single/multiple canvases discussion it notes the difference in viewing experience with each (gapless playback for single canvas).

This recipe is the first to introduce more complex A/V examples and builds on the basic audio and video examples which are already in the master cookbook branch.

A +1 is the recipe is OK to go through to the master A -1 is that is not OK and a comment in this issue should say what needs to be done

emulatingkat commented 4 years ago

I would find it helpful to see a brief explanation of why there is no preview link for Mirador (due to the fact that Mirador does not yet support A/V).

mcwhitaker commented 4 years ago

I see the reasoning: it is not widely known that Mirador does not support A/V content. However, this will become widely known at some point.

Adding an explanation for Mirador would require, for consistency, adding an explanation for each of the clients that do not support A/V. Furthermore, to remain consistent, we would have to add the explanation for all clients in all recipes, including the image recipes, since there is a number of clients that do not support at all version 3 of the APIs, not just for A/V content.

My preference is for simplicity: on the recipe we list only those clients that support the example manifest. The reader is free to try the manifest in their client of choice if they are not sure about why the link is missing.

glenrobson commented 4 years ago

I wonder if we should add stand alone page to the recipe site that gives an intro into the viewers and what they support? This could then be included in the list of viewers import so we don't need to update each recipe.

scossu commented 4 years ago

The recipe looks very clear. I'd suggest few minor tweaks for readability, for # 26:

Opera is a form of theatre in which music has a leading role.

Not sure whether this adds information or makes things less clear.

Implementation is similar to [Book Chapters][0024] except that nesting may be deeper.

I'd add that here we are also dealing with temporal instead of spacial fragments so it ties better with the next chapter.

The fragment URI for the remainder of Act I is #t=302.05,3971.24. It's not clear to me if a format of #t=302.05 (conveniently omitting the late boundary) is supported in Presentation 3, but if it is, this would be a good opportunity to exemplify it.

mcwhitaker commented 4 years ago

@scossu - When we were reviewing the opera recipes, those who were not familiar with Operas did not understand what we were trying to model and why Operas were a good example of a hierarchical navigation structure. We felt the need to provide information about Operas. Maybe you are assuming that everyone knows Operas? How do you see that line making things less clear?

We can definitely add wording about temporal segments rather than spacial segments when comparing to the Book use case.

According to the Prezi 3 spec, media fragment syntax as described by W3C is supported for canvases, so leaving out the end boundary should work. In recipe #26, though, the end boundary of the canvas is not 3971.24 but 7278.422; thus, the end of Act I does not coincide with the temporal end of the canvas. On the other hand, your suggestion could be applied to the fragment URI for Act II.

scossu commented 4 years ago

What I found a bit confusing was the mention of the musical element, since as I see it, this example would work just as well for a theatre piece.

Good point about the time marker.

mcwhitaker commented 4 years ago

@scossu -- I know some people who thought Opera was just music in a certain style, not knowing about the theater element.

triplingual commented 4 years ago

Mostly copyedits, mostly in connection with the emerging style guide:

26

64

65

zimeon commented 4 years ago

Voting +1 though it would be nice to see @triplingual's comments addressed (but OK if a later PR)

mcwhitaker commented 4 years ago

@zimeon - Glen will discuss with TRC about this: the proposal is that we will not change anything during the vote. If it is approved, we merge and then any changes that are not substantial (such as the ones here) can be added without requiring a new vote.

glenrobson commented 4 years ago

Issue 42 (Recipes 26, 64 and 65: Table of contents with A/V)

+1: 19 [azaroth42 cubap emulatingkat gigamorph glenrobson hadro irv jonhartzler joshuago78 julsraemy jwd mcwhitaker mejackreed mikeapp mixterj regisrob rentonsa tpendragon zimeon] 0: 0 [] -1: 0 []

Result: 19 / 19 = 1.00

Super majority is in favor, issue is approved

glenrobson commented 4 years ago

Issue 42 (Recipes 26, 64 and 65: Table of contents with A/V)

+1: 24 [azaroth42 brndgtl cjnishioka cubap emulatingkat gigamorph glenrobson hadro irv jonhartzler joshuago78 julsraemy jwd mcwhitaker mejackreed mikeapp mixterj mposton-folger nfreire regisrob rentonsa tpendragon triplingual zimeon] 0: 0 [] -1: 0 [] Not TRC: 0 [] Ineligible: 0 []

Result: 24 / 24 = 1.00

Super majority is in favor, issue is approved