Thread Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 9:05 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jim House (TDI): "Re: revision of 24(e)"
- Previous message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: revision of 24(e)"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:00 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
> > This seems to me like another accessibility value chain example:
> > 1. The content must contain both captioning and audio description,
> either open or closed, at the author's discretion.
> > 2. The device/product/system on which the content is being "played"
> must recognize the presence of closed captioning and/or audio
> description, and
> > provide a method for the user to control the captioning and
> > So two parties are burdened here. There may be others in
> the chain as
> well, if the content is on a server, and the player is a
> browser plugin, etc.
> Jim, two parties are not always burdened. Sometimes the
> content is the system, as in QT and some Flash examples -
> there may be others.
But don't the underlying QT and Flash platforms contain the
accessibility capabilities such as captioning, description,
keyboard navigation/control, etc.? It's then the author's
job to use these capabilities. Am I missing something?
> > Now, I have a question. So far we've been looking at captioning and
> audio description as boolean -- they're either there or not,
> or on or not. But
> > aren't both of these alternate formats undergoing evolution, with
> other options such as screen location, font, etc.
> > potentially controllable by users? If we want to update the
> standards, shouldn't we add some reference to these characteristics?
> This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others
> with more difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen
> any time soon.
Thanks for the promo ;-)
Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
advanced captioning and audio description features that would require
more than an on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking
about broadcast, recorded, and web-based....