E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 24 (In chronological order)

From: Sandra Andrews
Date: Tue, Mar 21 2006 12:50PM
Subject: Accessible podcasts
No previous message | Next message →

I have been thinking for some time about how we should make podcasts
accessible. I just attended a presentation by Apple on iTunes U, so I
asked the presenter.

The presenter replied that since video podcasts are essentially
quicktime files, we could do closed captioning via Final Cut Pro.
Video podcasts include powerpoints and static images that can be
synched to the audio.

Has anyone tried this solution? If so, report, please, and I can make
an appointment with our lab to try it out!

thanks

Sandy Andrews

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Mar 21 2006 2:10PM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

Sandra Andrews wrote:

> The presenter replied that since video podcasts are essentially
> quicktime files, we could do closed captioning via Final Cut Pro.

Or you could look at using SMIL to combine the video file with a
separate caption file

http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/66/
http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/79/

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Tue, Mar 21 2006 8:40PM
Subject: RE: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

I wonder what it's like trying to read the captioning on a video screen
that's 2.5"?


John E. Brandt
Augusta, ME USA
www.jebswebs.com
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Tue, Mar 21 2006 8:50PM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

Why would someone read the captioning on a tiny video screen? *curious*

On 3/21/06, John E. Brandt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> I wonder what it's like trying to read the captioning on a video screen
> that's 2.5"?
>

From: Darrel Austin
Date: Tue, Mar 21 2006 10:00PM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

> Why would someone read the captioning on a tiny video screen? *curious*

I think that was John's point. ;o)

-Darrel

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Tue, Mar 21 2006 10:30PM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

On 3/21/06, Darrel Austin < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > Why would someone read the captioning on a tiny video screen? *curious*
> I think that was John's point. ;o)
>

I don't get the point though.

This isn't someone making the assumption that podcasting is only for iPods,
right?

--Kynn

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:50AM
Subject: RE: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

Yes, that was the point.

BTW, I define "podcast" and "podcasting" as related to the creation of a
video element that is intended for viewing on an "iPod" or similar device.

Having recently been in the market for an MP3 player (primarily for music) I
took a look at pretty much all of the players on the market. Overall, I was
amazed by the size of the screens on these things and ended up purchasing
one that had the largest screen I could afford because my 50+ year old eyes
have some trouble with teeny tiny things these days and I did not feel like
I wanted to have to put on my reading glasses to change the song.

One could certainly create a video element with and for one of the many
computer-based media technologies and view it on a nice 17" monitor. And,
I'm sure reading captioning on a 17" screen is fairly easy to do. But I
would not use the term "podcast" for that production.

My initial comment was the result of a recent experience when I had a
colleague take a piece of video programming - which had already been closed
captioned - and convert it to QuickTime for use on the web. The file was
placed on a server with streaming capabilities and with the requisite coding
to allow the server to know what "size" file to serve up depending on the
connection speed. Despite our best efforts, whenever I viewed the streamed
content on my computer, the QuickTime client on my PC continued to render
the image as at the lowest rate with a screen image of about 2 inches. I can
attest that even with my reading glasses, I could not read the captioning,
partially because it was so small and partially because the resolution was
so poor.

I have assumed that this was due to some mis-coding on the part of the
streaming server, the QT file and or the settings on my QT client. But,
despite our efforts to solve the problem - including the purchase of the Pro
edition of QT - the problem of small size continues.

So, my question, albeit intended with some degree of sarcasm, was also an
honest one. Have any of you, in fact, tried to view a captioned piece of
video on an iPod or similar small video device? What is the experience like?
Can you see and read the captioning? Based upon my experience, I am assuming
that it would be fairly difficult to read the captioning.

Given that this is a list dealing with accessibility, and the initial
questioner asked about the accessibility of podcasts, I thought it was a
good question/comment.

~j


John E. Brandt
Augusta, ME USA
www.jebswebs.com <http://www.jebswebs.com/>;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:21 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible podcasts




On 3/21/06, Darrel Austin < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Why would someone read the captioning on a tiny video screen? *curious*
I think that was John's point. ;o)



I don't get the point though.

This isn't someone making the assumption that podcasting is only for iPods,
right?

--Kynn

From: Tim Beadle
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:00AM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

On 22/03/06, John E. Brandt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> BTW, I define "podcast" and "podcasting" as related to the creation of a
> video element that is intended for viewing on an "iPod" or similar device.

You're the only person I've heard defining it in exactly *those* terms :)

Podcasting is neither restricted to video content nor iPods. In fact,
people are referring to video podcasts as "vidcasts" or even
"vlogging".

"Podcasting is the distribution of audio or video files, such as radio
programs or music videos, over the Internet using either RSS or Atom
syndication for listening on mobile devices *and personal computers*."
(emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcasting

HTH,

Tim

From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:20AM
Subject: RE: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

> BTW, I define "podcast" and "podcasting" as related to the
> creation of a video element that is intended for viewing on
> an "iPod" or similar device.

I think the video aspect is the thin end of the wedge at the moment, the
vast majority of iPods are audio only at the moment, and the top
podcasts are audio ones.

As Tim suggested, video-casting is often referred to differently.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
t. +44 (0)117 929 7333 | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

Keep up to date with industry and Nomensa news, sign up to Nomensa
newsletters:
http://www.nomensa.com/news/nomensa-newsletters.html

Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:40AM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

On 3/22/06, John E. Brandt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Yes, that was the point.
>
> BTW, I define "podcast" and "podcasting" as related to the creation of a
> video element that is intended for viewing on an "iPod" or similar device.
>

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

One could certainly create a video element with and for one of the many
> computer-based media technologies and view it on a nice 17" monitor. And,
> I'm sure reading captioning on a 17" screen is fairly easy to do. But I
> would not use the term "podcast" for that production.
>

Your definition of "podcast" is, as others have pointed out, wholly and
fully incorrect.

Podcasting is in fact a poorly chosen name, but nobody who knows what the
term means would define it as "creating a video element for viewing on an
iPod."

By and large, podcasting is "creating sound files, typically as part of a
regular ongoing series, which are then wrapped in RSS/Atom for download and
play on anything that supports sound files."

Your definition, restricting it to "(i)pods", seems to be one formed out of
lack of knowledge of what podcasting is, and just hearing the (poorly
chosen) term and forming assumptions. As such, whatever definition you
provide for "podcast" is going to be wrong, since you don't know what you're
talking about here.

As far as podcast accessibility, podcasts are (primarily) audio content
("video podcasts" are the exception to the rule) and thus follow all the
normal accessibility rules. They MUST have textual equivalent (transcript)
and SHOULD have synchronized (via SMIL) text and captioning for non-text
audio events. (Video podcasts need more, of course.)

--Kynn

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:30AM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

On 3/22/06, Sandra Andrews < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> I am bringing up the issue because accessible podcasts/downloadable
> audio files are not happening in education at least. Podcasts in
> education are not accessible. There is no budget. I can't personally
> legislate people to stop producing them. I can't personally legislate
> people to use time consuming methods that require someone other than
> the instructor to work on the project. :-(


So it's not really your problem.

You can offer resources, but you can't force anything. Your professors will
continue to make inaccessible podcasts and it will be a big problem until
enough students complain. The education of deaf and blind students will
suffer until the professors fix things.

I've worked in a university before; I know how hard it is to force tenured
professors do to anything they don't want to do. You simply need to do what
you CAN do. Provide information, give examples, circulate memos (with dire
warnings), offer tutorials, and then be there to pick up the pieces when
they ignore you for years until they get sued.

While you're at it, talk to your superiors and document your attempts to
promote accessibility. Speak to the university's lawyers and ADA officers
and say, "look, they're cutting out students with disabilities, and not
listening to me; I want to know that MY rear is covered here. I'm doing the
right thing, even if they're not." And get it in writing.

--Kynn

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:40AM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

On 3/22/06, Sandra Andrews < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> I am looking for practicality, ease of use, affordability, some sort
> of standard method that can be made available to instructors and will
> function as proof of concept for the ones we would like to convince of
> the fact that accessibility is necessary.


I'm confused why there's a separate issue with podcasting that is viewed
different from audio content on the web.

Podcasts are just audio (and sometimes video, but VERY rarely) files
distributed via RSS/Atom.

Therefore, you do what we've always done with sound content:

1. At a minimum, provide text equivalents -- in this case, a transcript of
everything on the podcast.

2. Secondly, provide a synchronized text stream. For this you use the SMIL
language.

Read about SMIL here:

http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/

Get MAGpie and make synchronized SMIL files out of quicktime movies here:

http://ncam.wgbh.org/webaccess/magpie/

Do you need more information than this? I seem to be having some problem
understanding exactly what you're looking for.

--Kynn

From: Sandra Andrews
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 11:00AM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

Please let me recast the original question as well though.

Educators have been distributing podcasts for some time now. As they
move towards using downloadable audio files for instruction and for
dissemination of critical information, accessibility will also become
a critical issue.

It doesn't really matter how people view/hear the information,
although I do realize that there are interesting related questions
with their own ramifications for accessibility.

After the demonstration I attended yesterday, I thought, hmm, the
addition of a few static images, plus closed captioning, might work.

Of course, the addition of a few static images that have text on them
would work as well, would be easier, and actually would be even more
interesting from an educator's standpoint. For some hearing persons,
visual learning works better anyway. Notes could also function as a
review before a test. The images would function as chapter markers.
Etc.

I am looking for practicality, ease of use, affordability, some sort
of standard method that can be made available to instructors and will
function as proof of concept for the ones we would like to convince of
the fact that accessibility is necessary.

When a deaf friend of mine wanted to access a podcast that had to do
with the training of interpreters and that had been created by a noted
educator, there was no transcript available. There was no closed
captioning. The podcast was entirely inaccessible by a member of the
community that the podcast purported to be concerned with.

hope that clarifies my intent,

Sandy

On 3/22/06, John E. Brandt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Yes, that was the point.
>
> BTW, I define "podcast" and "podcasting" as related to the creation of a
> video element that is intended for viewing on an "iPod" or similar device.
>
> Having recently been in the market for an MP3 player (primarily for music) I
> took a look at pretty much all of the players on the market. Overall, I was
> amazed by the size of the screens on these things and ended up purchasing
> one that had the largest screen I could afford because my 50+ year old eyes
> have some trouble with teeny tiny things these days and I did not feel like
> I wanted to have to put on my reading glasses to change the song.
>
> One could certainly create a video element with and for one of the many
> computer-based media technologies and view it on a nice 17" monitor. And,
> I'm sure reading captioning on a 17" screen is fairly easy to do. But I
> would not use the term "podcast" for that production.
>
> My initial comment was the result of a recent experience when I had a
> colleague take a piece of video programming - which had already been closed
> captioned - and convert it to QuickTime for use on the web. The file was
> placed on a server with streaming capabilities and with the requisite coding
> to allow the server to know what "size" file to serve up depending on the
> connection speed. Despite our best efforts, whenever I viewed the streamed
> content on my computer, the QuickTime client on my PC continued to render
> the image as at the lowest rate with a screen image of about 2 inches. I can
> attest that even with my reading glasses, I could not read the captioning,
> partially because it was so small and partially because the resolution was
> so poor.
>
> I have assumed that this was due to some mis-coding on the part of the
> streaming server, the QT file and or the settings on my QT client. But,
> despite our efforts to solve the problem - including the purchase of the Pro
> edition of QT - the problem of small size continues.
>
> So, my question, albeit intended with some degree of sarcasm, was also an
> honest one. Have any of you, in fact, tried to view a captioned piece of
> video on an iPod or similar small video device? What is the experience like?
> Can you see and read the captioning? Based upon my experience, I am assuming
> that it would be fairly difficult to read the captioning.
>
> Given that this is a list dealing with accessibility, and the initial
> questioner asked about the accessibility of podcasts, I thought it was a
> good question/comment.
>
> ~j
>
>
>
> John E. Brandt
> Augusta, ME USA
> www.jebswebs.com
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Kynn Bartlett
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:21 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessible podcasts
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/21/06, Darrel Austin < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > Why would someone read the captioning on a tiny video screen? *curious*
> > I think that was John's point. ;o)
> >
>
> I don't get the point though.
>
> This isn't someone making the assumption that podcasting is only for iPods,
> right?
>
> --Kynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Sandra Sutton Andrews, PhD
IDEAL Director of User Support
http://ideal.azed.gov
University Technology Office
Arizona State University

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 11:10AM
Subject: RE: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

Please insert "video" in front of all of my references to "podcasting." As
the original questioner had asked about the accessibility of "video
podcasting," I was referring to that form.

Oh, and as to my definition...thank you for the reference. Very
enlightening. However, if you read on in the wikipedia definition I found
this statement:

"The editors of the New Oxford American Dictionary declared "podcasting" the
2005 word of the year, defining the term as "a digital recording of a radio
broadcast or similar program, made available on the Internet for downloading
to a personal audio player".[2]"

And as that reference also points out, the term has evolved much over its
short life span and continues. Heck, it might mean something different
tomorrow.

But, back to my question about the legibility of closed captioning on video
podcasts viewed on portable players. Has anyone viewed a video podcast -
with captioning - on a small player? Can you read the captioning without a
magnifying glass?

Answering the original question: I guessing that the pure answer about
accessibility and any kind of "videocast" is that there probably has to be a
text version/transcript/description for any of these media whether because a
deaf person may not be able to make use of the audio or the effective use of
the close captioning and the blind or visually impaired user may not be able
to rely on the audio portion of the video for complete content.

John E. Brandt
Augusta, ME USA
www.jebswebs.com
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: Greg Kraus
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 11:50AM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Sandra Andrews wrote:
> The presenter replied that since video podcasts are essentially
> quicktime files, we could do closed captioning via Final Cut Pro.
> Video podcasts include powerpoints and static images that can be
> synched to the audio.

Video Podcasts on the Video iPod are files that QuickTime can play, but
they are not capable of supporting a text track which is what is
usually used for captioning. You could combine the captioning on top
of the video, but it could not be accessed as a text track would with a
QuickTime movie. It would simply be text imposed on top of a picture.

In terms of the size of the image, the iPod plays video back at 320
pixels by 240 pixels, but you can actually make your video podcast
larger. I have made ones at 480 pixels by 360 pixels. (The actual
upper limit I believe is around 553 pixels by 415 pixels at a 4:3
screen dimension.) The iPod will just downsize your video during
playback. However, video podcasts (or vodcasts) do not have to be
viewed on an iPod. If a person viewed the podcast in iTunes or in
QuickTime, they could see it at the larger resolution.

On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Or you could look at using SMIL to combine the video file with a
> separate caption file
>
> http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/66/
> http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/79/

Patrick's implementation might lead to some promising results. You
could encode your video and audio into an MPEG-4 file and use a SMIL
file to synchronize it with a QuickTime text track. For the accessible
version of your podcast your provide a link to the SMIL file. For the
non-accessible, Video iPod friendly version you simply provide a link
to the MPEG-4 file. You could just make 2 different RSS feeds, or have
two entries in a single RSS feed - one for the accessible SMIL version,
and one for just the MPEG-4 file. I haven't tested this yet, but
probably will be shortly.

> Has anyone tried this solution? If so, report, please, and I can make
> an appointment with our lab to try it out!

We are actually about to begin beta testing a new product we are
developing that will convert Microsoft PowerPoint presentations into
video podcasts, QuickTime movies, and/or accessible websites with audio
narration and transcripts.

Hope this helps.

Greg Kraus
--
LecShare, Inc.
P.O. Box 1119
Clayton, NC 27528
919.934.3810 (voice)
919.882.1275 (fax)
http://www.lecshare.com



>

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 12:00PM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

On 3/22/06, John E. Brandt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Oh, and as to my definition...thank you for the reference. Very
> enlightening. However, if you read on in the wikipedia definition I found
> this statement:
>
> "The editors of the New Oxford American Dictionary declared "podcasting"
> the
> 2005 word of the year, defining the term as "a digital recording of a
> radio
> broadcast or similar program, made available on the Internet for
> downloading
> to a personal audio player".[2]"


Which means the New Oxford American Dictionary got it wrong.

And as that reference also points out, the term has evolved much over its
> short life span and continues. Heck, it might mean something different
> tomorrow.


Okay, go ask podcasters what podcasting means.

They'll tell you it doesn't mean "for an personal audio player."

I mean, really. Go ask a podcaster. They'll tell you that many people can
and do listen to the podcasts on Real Computers, and they're by no means
exclusive to either video or to iPod-style devices.

Meanwhile, as far as captions go -- if we're talking about people with
disabilities (and yes, I know some of you would like to ignore them for
purposes of accessibility), the people who benefit most from accessible,
captioned content are deaf and hard of hearing users.

The percentage of those people who actually own MP3 players is small. The
percentage of those people who use computers is quite high. I think it's
fair to assume that when we're talking about podcast accessibility, we're
not talking about a deaf user hunched over a 2 inch screen trying to make
out tiny captions.

In general, we're talking about the same techniques for making audio and
video accessible that we've always known and used: transcripts and
synchronized text streams.

--Kynn

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 12:20PM
Subject: RE: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

Thank you, Greg. This answers my question.

Good luck with your new product.

~j

John E. Brandt
Augusta, ME USA
www.jebswebs.com
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: Sandra Andrews
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 12:40PM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

I am bringing up the issue because accessible podcasts/downloadable
audio files are not happening in education at least. Podcasts in
education are not accessible. There is no budget. I can't personally
legislate people to stop producing them. I can't personally legislate
people to use time consuming methods that require someone other than
the instructor to work on the project. :-(

Having noticed how easy GarageBand (new version) makes the addition of
video podcast chapters to which text could be added, I think that that
this might be something I could get podcast creators of my
acquaintance interested in. I suspect that any text version is better
than no text version.

The problem will lie in convincing instructors that this solution is
good for all of their students.

I am wondering if anyone else has tried adding text on images to
podcasts. I think I will. I think I like it better than the closed
captioning route, because I know that alas, Final Cut is also not a
trivial application to learn. If it doesn't work in iMovie, forget it
(if I am trying to convince instructors to

Sandy

On 3/22/06, Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/22/06, Sandra Andrews < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > I am looking for practicality, ease of use, affordability, some sort
> > of standard method that can be made available to instructors and will
> > function as proof of concept for the ones we would like to convince of
> > the fact that accessibility is necessary.
>
>
> I'm confused why there's a separate issue with podcasting that is viewed
> different from audio content on the web.
>
> Podcasts are just audio (and sometimes video, but VERY rarely) files
> distributed via RSS/Atom.
>
> Therefore, you do what we've always done with sound content:
>
> 1. At a minimum, provide text equivalents -- in this case, a transcript of
> everything on the podcast.
>
> 2. Secondly, provide a synchronized text stream. For this you use the SMIL
> language.
>
> Read about SMIL here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/
>
> Get MAGpie and make synchronized SMIL files out of quicktime movies here:
>
> http://ncam.wgbh.org/webaccess/magpie/
>
> Do you need more information than this? I seem to be having some problem
> understanding exactly what you're looking for.
>
> --Kynn
>
>
>
>


--
Sandra Sutton Andrews, PhD
IDEAL Director of User Support
http://ideal.azed.gov
University Technology Office
Arizona State University

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 2:10PM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

John E. Brandt wrote:

> But, back to my question about the legibility of closed captioning on video
> podcasts viewed on portable players. Has anyone viewed a video podcast -
> with captioning - on a small player? Can you read the captioning without a
> magnifying glass?

I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, and maybe I'm making a
very generalised assumption, but: how many deaf/hard of hearing people
use an iPod or similar portable player?

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 5:50PM
Subject: RE: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

> > But, back to my question about the legibility of closed
> captioning on
> > video podcasts viewed on portable players. Has anyone
> viewed a video
> > podcast - with captioning - on a small player? Can you read the
> > captioning without a magnifying glass?

Yes. NCAM recently did some testing of open-captioned videos for playback
on an iPod and other handheld devices, like a PSP. I was quite surprised at
how legible the text was at a small size, although it would take some
serious research to figure out what's optimal. Transparent-overlay
captions-- that is, captions placed directly over the video region, as
opposed to placing them in a separate text region below the video-- are also
quite legible. And because the text doesn't take up extra real estate on
the screen, the video can be sized larger.

> I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, and maybe I'm
> making a very generalised assumption, but: how many deaf/hard
> of hearing people use an iPod or similar portable player?

It's impossible to say. But that's not really the issue. Movies should be
captioned, regardless of the playback mechanism. Deaf people watch movies
at home and in the theaters. Why not on handheld devices?

Geoff Freed
WGBH/NCAM




>

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 6:00PM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

geoff freed wrote:

>> I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, and maybe I'm
>> making a very generalised assumption, but: how many deaf/hard
>> of hearing people use an iPod or similar portable player?
>
> It's impossible to say. But that's not really the issue. Movies should be
> captioned, regardless of the playback mechanism. Deaf people watch movies
> at home and in the theaters. Why not on handheld devices?

Of course. That's not what I meant (and earlier in the thread I already
mentioned SMIL as a possible solution that can accommodate captioned and
non-captioned playback on capable devices without the need for
re-encoding etc). What I was getting at is: because of the
misunderstanding regarding what podcasting actually means, a large
number of replies started focussing on the "but why would you want to do
it on a small handheld screen". As was rightly pointed out, this is not
just about video on iPod. Therefore my question was mainly aimed at
those taking the screensize as an argument for not doing it.

In short: I'm on your side :)

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Joe Clark
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 10:20AM
Subject: RE: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

>NCAM recently did some testing of open-captioned videos for playback
>on an iPod and other handheld devices, like a PSP.

I smell a grant request in the offing.

>I was quite surprised at how legible the text was at a small size

It isn't "small" in any useful sense because captioning is to be
considered in comparison to the size of the image and the viewer's
vision. If you decode Line 21 captions and shove the whole thing onto
an iPod, they'll be the same *proportional* size as on TV, give or
take a scanline. Other kinds of open captioning would have similar
effects. You certainly might want to make them a wee bit larger, but
not by a lot.

We demonstrated this at CBC circa 2002 when we ran a project to
decode Line 21 captions for online viewing. We provided a captioned
and an uncaptioned file for many news items. The caption fonts were
as ugly as ever but were not really any less readable. And though the
CBC pulled the plug on the project (true to form, without telling
me), the videos are still online.

<http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&;hl=en&q=captioned+site%3Awww.cbc.ca%2Fstories%2F2002%2F>

<http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&;hl=en&q=captioned+site%3Awww.cbc.ca%2Fstories%2F2003%2F>

<http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&;hl=en&q=captioned+site%3Awww.cbc.ca%2Fstories%2F2004%2F>

You can verify it yourself in other ways, as by watching DVDs with
captions (or subtitles, as the effect is the same) on a laptop at a
fair distance from your eyes, as on a plane ride. Size measurement is
relative, not absolute.

--

Joe Clark | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>;
Expect criticism if you top-post

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sun, Mar 26 2006 11:10AM
Subject: Re: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | Next message →

Joe Clark wrote:

>> I was quite surprised at how legible the text was at a small size
>
> It isn't "small" in any useful sense because captioning is to be
> considered in comparison to the size of the image and the viewer's
> vision.

...
> Size measurement is relative, not absolute.

I guess the original poster (can't remember who it was now) at least
partially referred to the low resolution of the screen, not just the
size of the actual font.

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: COHEN, ED
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 6:10AM
Subject: RE: Accessible podcasts
← Previous message | No next message

Hi,
Not a problem. Mr IndyGo is always so happy to see me.

May I join you tomorrow morning coming in?
Thanks,
Ed