Thread Subject: Re: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2007 8:30 AM

I want to say I concur with Paul completely.

Paul, you say this more effectively than I but are representing exactly
my thinking.

What we want is captioning information available where ever the media is
viewed, so we should reflect that in our standards. Saying captioning
must be in specific protocols for everything seems almost impossible at
this time, so we need to leave the first requirement in place,
captioning everywhere, and then define where we do have specifics that
don't place any great burden on content developers or broadcasters or
media player folks.







Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Schomburg,
Paul
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:19 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
DRAFT

Folks: With regard to Larry's comments, please see the following
responses [in brackets]:

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
support 708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS -
it says videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can
support 708 data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can
do just that).

[Agreed. There are digital VHS recorders, such as those marketed by JVC,
that support CEA-708. Such recorders, if they include a DTV tuner, would
be required by the FCC to decode and display 708 captions.]

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
bodies and manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
video source

devices.

[BluRay and HD-DVD do have a way to support recording of CEA-708 data.
If a recorder includes DTV tuning capability, the product would be
required, per FCC rules, to decode and display 708 captions. Consumer
devices designed to play back prepackaged media, such as motion
pictures, do not include a DTV reception capability and thus not include
708 decoding capability. In this case, "subtitles for the deaf and hard
of hearing" provide a functional equivalent means of providing captions.


It is important that the output of TEITAC treat all media player devices
similarly, and not place a burden on one particular type of device
(unless required by law or regulation, such as DTV receivers). At the
same time, equivalent functionality should be expected of all types of
media playback devices. Players of prepackaged media (e.g. BluRay or
HD-DVD) should have the same requirements as other media players, such
as portable media players (iPods, etc.) or personal computers. In the
future media content will be increasingly downloaded or streamed from
the Internet, recorded and played on a variety of devices. TEITAC
should not attempt to force such devices to use a timed text format
(708) that was designed for broadcast applications. Of course, content
providers or device manufacturers may choose to employ 708-formated
captions, but in many cases they may choose alternative formats that
provide equivalent functionality. TEITAC should not second guess what
technology developers choose to employ, but only specify the
functionality necessary in the end result that government employs.]

Thanks, Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:11 PM
To: TEITAC AV list
Cc: Mike Paciello
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
DRAFT

Paul raises some important points here, which I will respond to
interspersed below. I don't believe we will be able to settle these
issues right here and now and can raise them again, as we did at the
last face-to-face.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meetings in DC next
week, so will not be able to press my case on the issue Paul raises
below. Tony Jasionowski, also from Panasonic, will be leading the AV
subcommittee discussion and I am confident he and other members of the
subcommittee will give a fair hearing to all sides of these last
remaining issues:


Schomburg, Paul wrote:

> 4-A - Caption Playback
> Comments:
>
> 1. In the second box, please note that the following devices may not
> contain display capabilities, and thus must either pass the data to a
> DTV display or decode the data and pass an open-captioned signal to
the
> DTV display or monitor:
>
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>
> In addition, videotape (VCR) or DVD source devices cannot provide
> CEA-708 data. Therefore these source devices should not be included
in
> this section.

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
support
708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS - it says
videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can support 708
data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can do just
that).

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
bodies and manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
video source devices.


> I suggest the following changes:
>
> * Wide-screen (16:9) digital television (DTV) displays measuring at
> least 7.8 inches vertically
> * DTV sets with conventional (4:3) displays measuring at least 13
> inches diagonally
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>
> CEA 708
>
> Receive, decode and display digital video signals
>
> * broadcast
> * cable
> * satellite
> * IPTV
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
> the DTV display or monitor

That's how it works with cable and satellite set-top boxes (passing
through an open-captioned signal) and that should work as well in the
way Paul indicates above. Agreed.


> 2. We cannot agree with a requirement to require decoding of CEA-708
in
> devices that are not currently required to do so by FCC rules. As a
> compromise, however, I suggest that we add "or functional equivalent"
to
> the middle box as below. I also strongly object to calling out
specific
> product brand names. These requirements should apply to all digital
> video source devices, such as PCs, and should not be aimed at a select

> technology or product category. All digital video source devices
should
> have similar requirements to provide captions when used to play video
> content on a DTV display or monitor.

FCC rules do not govern 508 rules. If they did, then we shouldn't be
requiring 608 caption data playback on conventional DVDs (see first box)
and yet we do and have for years. So a 508 requirement for 708 support
in the new DVD formats isn't determined by FCC rules. The questions is,
do we want to do so?

As for "calling out specific products names," Paul means using "BluRay"
and
"HD-DVD" - but is this so different than saying "DVD" above? If we don't
say those names specifically, how will procurement agents know what we
are talking about. If we say vaguely "video source devices" only, does
that cover other equipment that other manufacturers will object to. How
about an iPod or an iPhone? They are video source devices and can
neither decode nor pass on 708 data? Should they?

> * Other digital video source devices
>
> CEA 708 or
> functional equivalent
>
> * Pass data, when available, to the caption decoding circuitry of DTV
> displays
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
> the DTV display or monitor

Using "functional equivalent" language with defining what the functions
are, in detail, leaves a wide open hole for all kinds of experimental
ways of displaying text. Do we want that?

>
> 3. CEA-708 is a very extensive standard, and the FCC does not require

> DTV receivers to implement all of its features. I think the TETIAC
> guidelines should defer to the FCC rules which define the sections of
> CEA-708 that devices must support. Perhaps just a footnote is needed
to
> clarify this.

It is true that, for instance, the 708 standard has provisions for up to
63
caption channels per program (!) while the FCC rules require only 6. We
can and should point to the subsection of 708 that the FCC mandates for
support within DTV tuners and STBs. A footnote could refer to:

FCC Docket 00-259
Adopted: July 21, 2000
Released: July 31, 2000

In the Matter of

Closed Captioning Requirements for
Digital Television Receivers

Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming,
Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Video Programming Accessibility


> 6.3-E - Interactive Elements
This section was not written by our subcommittee so I can't comment on
the intent of the authors.

And with that, I'm off on vacation for a week - good luck!

- Larry


>
> All materials containing interactive elements that are part of the
> content must comply with 1194.21 [a-z] as well as 1194.24 a-e.
>
> Comments:
>
> 1. I think a definition of an "interactive element" is needed for
this
> section.
>
>
>
> 2. A concern with Sec 6.3-E that is more of a question: Is the
intent
> here to impose all of the web/software requirements currently being
> discussed onto consumer electronic video playback devices? My concern

> is that this could potentially prohibit a whole class of devices, such

> as DVD players, from government use. For example, DVDs authored with
> talking menus could be considered to contain "interactive elements",
but
> I am not sure if these would fully comply with the requirements of
> 1194.21 today? Since the web/software section is intended to
primarily
> address PCs, I am really apprehensive that these requirements may not
be
> able to be met by consumer-grade media players. I think this area
> requires more discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV
Subcommittee
> meeting today.
>
>
>
> But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
> Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable
to
> attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and
act
> on the following:
>
>
>
> 1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and
> provide comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved.
> Comments should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way
-
> they can be posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.
>
>
>
> Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:
>
>
>
> A) Subpart A Definitions
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definit
> ions
>
>
>
> Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe

> we have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire
need:
>
>
>
> " The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:
>
> Section 1194.4 Definitions:
>
> CAPTIONS:
>
> Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
> Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of
> spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken information such

> as important sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker
identification
> and location. Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
> information. In some countries captions are called subtitles.
>
>
>
> VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:
>
> The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details
that
> are not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio
> output alone.
>
> Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program
and
> are usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide

> information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
> without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who
> are blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know
> what is happening on the screen."
>
>
>
> B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or
> Players/Displays
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Pr
> ovisions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays
>
>
>
> C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia
> (Format)
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimed
> ia_28Format.29
>
>
>
> D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...
>
> - Synchronized Alternatives
>
> - Captions and Transcripts
>
> - Video Description and Full Text Equivalents
>
> - Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Aud
> io_and.2For_Video_Content
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
> face-to-face.
>
>
>
> We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP

> (the committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).
>
>
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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