Thread Subject: Re: thoughts from another discussion (related)

Note

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: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, Feb 21 2007 2:25 PM

Allen,

I thought you might find the definition from wikipedia on captioning
useful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captioning):
"The United States and Canada distinguish captions from subtitles. In
these countries, "subtitles" assume the viewer can hear but cannot
understand the language, so they only translate dialogue and some
onscreen text. "Captions" aim to describe all significant audio content,
as well as "non-speech information," such as the identity of speakers
and their manner of speaking, sometimes also describing music or sound
effects using words or symbols within the closed caption. The United
Kingdom and Ireland do not always make the distinction between subtitles
and closed captions, where "subtitles" is a general term."

I'd also like to ask if anyone else has ever had 1194.24(c) not apply
because the creator thinks the audio isn't necessary for understanding
the content (...multimedia...that contain speech or other audio
information _necessary for the comprehension of the content_, shall be
open or closed captioned.) or where you have video information with no
audio yet need the captioning for assistive technology to function, but
Section 508 doesn't cover it.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
Allen
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:07 PM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Cc: Peterson, Bill
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] thoughts from another discussion (related)


I'd like to suggest we get a paper assembled to address the variety of
components and standards in play for authoring, transporting, storing,
delivering to screen, and customizing captioning information. I believe
we may need to step back and consider the goal, which seems to be,
"708-like captioning content and functionality must be available for all
multimedia presentations and content".

I believe we must consider the end-to-end requirements, and allow
industry to fill any gaps. It sounds like we have large gaps due to
competing formats, and lack of functionality in some delivery devices
such as "DVD" players.

Authoring tools as mentioned are not ready for 708 authoring.

Sub-titling custom authoring is technically feasible but not an industry
practice at present.

Now, let me approach this from another perspective.

Video description is currently technically feasible, even for menu
elements, but is not an industry standard. it doesn't change the fact
that we need that functionality as a minimum requirement.

So, can we try and put these end-to-end requirements together with less
regard for the competing and inconsistent authoring, transport, storage
format, and end-user customization IT components. I think we must set
the requirements for "multimedia", and allow the industry to fill this
requirement as it can.

There may not be a "global" solution, as there are multiple global
formats in use now.

This is very similar to the web/software issues around content
authoring, format capacities, user-agent requirements, and end-to-end
functionality.

Just one note concerning sub-titling:
My understanding of captioning is that it is similar to video
description, in that if fills in the gaps the end-user has due to
physical limitation. So, can't a DVD, for example, provide a
sub-titling track selection that doesn't include such things as
background noise description, and another that does? Getting the
end-user customization features into the DVD does not sound
insurmountable to me, but then again I'm not nearly as technical as you
all may be.

For the near term we seem to be forced to be selecting the "best" method
to get the solution made available for the technology, broadcast may be
one solution imposed by history and convention, while other formats may
have other available solutions.

Hopefully this post will help focus some thinking on the end-to-end
"what do we want" and how to get that down on paper, and then fill in
technology specific items underneath.




Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:36 PM
To: TEITAC AV list
Cc: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] thoughts from another discussion (related)

A QT file with a text track can be downloaded to an iPod (or uploaded to
iTunes) - you just lose the text track in the process. Unless you burn
in the captions - open caption it.

- Larry


Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

>
>
>>> /This article states that most DVD players don't support closed
>
>>> captions.
>
>
>
>> Ugh.
>
>
>
>> On a similar note, I learned this morning that the strict definition
>> of
>
>> "podcast" doesn't allow video files to be captioned. From what I
>
>> understand, if a QuickTime file includes a text track (which is how
>> you
>
>> include captions for this format), then it can't be downloaded via
>
>> iTunes or played on an iPod...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
>
>
>
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University