Thread Subject: Re: Proposed new standard for "video signing"
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.
Date: Mon, Mar 26 2007 11:30 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Proposed new standard for "video signing""
- Previous message in thread: Brenda Battat: "Re: Proposed new standard for "video signing""
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Why can't ther be both. Hearing loss is a spectrum. People who can hear want to hear what is being said. Reading captions is not a subsitute for hearing if you can hear. :)
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
From: Brenda Battat < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:48:07
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ,TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed new standard for "video signing"
I agree that good quality video could be helpful yes for speech reading,
but functionally equivalent? No. The only way to have functional
equivalence via video for people who do not use sign as a communication
mode would be with captions. This is because there are so many variables
that impact whether someone can speech read adequately or not. Such as
skill of the speech reader; speech characteristics of the speaker;
presence or absence of beards, mustaches; additional use of or lack of
gestures, facial expressions; how much audio reaching the
listener/speech reader etc etc etc. We should not assume that by
including speechreaders in this standard that access is taken care of,
as it would not be most likely.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:04 PM
To: TEITAC Telecom listserv (E-mail)
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed new standard for "video signing"
Per the following proposed new standard in the draft --
"1194.23(a2) Telecommunications products or systems that provide a
function allowing voice communication and have sufficient bandwidth to
support real-time video signing but do not themselves provide real-time
video communication sufficient to support signing: (1) shall provide a
standard connection point attaching a real-time signing device and . .
Is there some reason the video stream should be limited to "signing"?
Good quality video would be extremely helpful by providing access to
speechreading, gestural cues, and other non-verbal communication
supports for people with hearing loss who do not use sign as a
- Next message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Proposed new standard for "video signing""
- Previous message in Thread: Brenda Battat: "Re: Proposed new standard for "video signing""