Thread Subject: Re: teitac-video, Revison of 1194.24 (e)

From: Jasionowski, Tony
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 1:50 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Karen, Jean, Andrew, and all,
I agree with Karen's 1st sentence alone as Jean recommended
or
both 1st and 2nd sentences as Karen originally proposed and Andrew also
said was "OK".
I prefer shorter concise text rather than more lengthy statements
Tony Jasionowski
Panasonic
------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:24:59 -0800
From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID:

< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The second sentence is needed - the captions/descriptions might be open
and that should be OK.
AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Baronas, Jean
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:02 PM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

1/4/06

All,

Please consider simplifying the text, as opposed to expanding the text,
to a technology-neutral approach (which should "last" longer):

"The product shall provide a method for the user to turn closed captions
or audio descriptions on and off."

The above is Karen's first sentence. I recommend that Karen's second
sentence be deleted since it is duplicative.


Thanks,
Jean Baronas






-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:01 AM
To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)



> -----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
> description.
> >
> > 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....

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None