Thread Subject: Re: multiple standards

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Wed, Jul 18 2007 10:35 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Karen Peltz Strauss: "Re: multiple standards"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Karen, your concern is well founded, and I agree the transition to DTV is not going well for media access. The problem is that the genie is out of the bottle. Our battle is to attempt to bring some order to the chaos.

In fact content authors don't use 708 during the authoring process; they use proprietary systems and then convert to a delivery format either when the content is delivered into the broadcast, or recorded on a tape. So it is not really an additional burden for the content author to support different delivery formats. The challenge is to translate and pass on the proprietary data when content is sold into other markets. There is a need in the industry for a standard exchange format and clearing house so that the captions stay with the media, but 708 cannot fulfil this role for several technical reasons.

708 is a specific delivery technology, it depends on an MPEG transport system and is currently capable of encoding only a small number of languages. It doesn't carry time-code itself (but relies on the MPEG time-code) and so doesn't work well for editing, and it is not a general solution to the problem of authoring video media or delivering it internationally, as is required on the internet.

It is unfortunate that the HD interconnections do not support transmitting 708, but this is because for HD, TV sets do not do the MPEG decoding, they are in essence dumb terminals. The requirement for presenting captions has to happen in an upstream device or player. This does mean that there is less requirement to adhere to standard communication formats in newer formats, but it does mean that the consumer may not have a standard way to turn the captions on and off or control other aspects like fonts etc. again this is something that the industry needs to address, but the way the 508 wording is going is not helping this, and may end up requiring less captioning functionality than is currently being provided.


Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Corporate Accessibility Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz Strauss
Sent: 18 July 2007 12:36
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Laura Ruby; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cc: "kpsconsulting@"@starpower.net
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] multiple standards

I have another concern as well. What happens in the following scenario:
Suppose a consumer purchases digital TV equipment that has both a receiver
for the receipt of television programming and a play back feature for DVDs.
Under the FCC's rules, that device must be able to support 708 captions.
But there is no mandate requiring support for any other type of standard.
If multiple standards are used - one for digital television programs (the
708 standard) and one or more for HD DVDs or Blu Ray DVDs, will the
tuner/receiver equipment covered under the FCC's rules have to support all
of these standards? Or will consumers end up in a situation where they have
to buy multiple pieces of equipment to be able to watch different types of
DVDs? Is there some type of API or other fix that can translate various
standards for compatibility with one another?

This DTV transition has been a disaster for caption viewers. Consumer
organizations have been receiving scores of complaints from individuals who
have been unable to figure out how to get captions on their new TV sets.
Problems with connecting cables, set top boxes, playback devices abound. It
would seem that throwing multiple captioning standards into the equation
will make everything all the worse for consumers.

I am also concerned, as Larry is, that making captioning more burdensome for
the content author (by requiring captions in multiple formats) will hurt
consumers by resulting in greater exemptions to the captioning requirements.
Consumers would like to see the next generation of programming - both
digital and IP-based - continue to provide the same level of access to which
they have grown accustomed. Adding to the burden of achieving access is
going to ultimately backfire on consumers. We are already experiencing
problems when previously captioned programs are re-shown on the Internet.
Our goal should be to minimize the need for reformatting as much as
possible, not to increase the need for this.

I am adding a few people to this e-mail - Jenifer Simpson from AAPD, who has
been meeting with the industry on the set top box issue, Laura Ruby from
Microsoft, who may have some interest from the content provider/distributor
perspective, and Al Sonnenstrahl, who is my alternate on the TEITAC.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Goldberg" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC AV list" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT


> Larry chiming in from vacation...
>
> I have to disagree with this thread from Paul, Allen and Sean, on behalf
> of
> content providers:
>
> If there isn't a set standard or common way of presenting closed captions
> in
> video material, a content author will need to author in multiple methods -
> which the insistence on no set or named standard can result in. Imagine a
> government agency wanting to distribute a closed captioned video via the
> following means:
>
> - broadcast
> - cable
> - satellite
> - DVD
> - VHS (for legacy users - and there will be plenty for a long time)
> - BluRay
> - HD-DVD
>
> If that producer uses a combination of 608 and 708 data formats, they can
> caption and encode once - except for the last two which will require a
> reformat which is a time and cost burden.
>
> No one on the committee seems to be representing the concerns of content
> providers, so I am making the case for that important sector. These are
> our
> clients who are * EXTREMELY * confused about new digital formats (let
> alone
> online, web-based video) and spend a tremendous amount of time getting it
> all to line up. 508 should not encourage proliferation of numerous new
> closed caption formats that may or may not be supported across product
> lines
> and video source equipment.
>
> As for globalization:
> The international arguments have been made repeatedly, with the same
> conclusion: harmonization with global standards is a desired goal, but not
> one that should trump effective accommodations for U.S. agencies and their
> disabled employees and constituents. If there was an international caption
> data standard we could all agree on, we would be putting that one forward.
> Without such, what would keep anyone from using NABTS teletext or other
> spec
> used elsewhere but highly uncommon in the U.S. production community?
>
> - Larry
>
>
> Sean Hayes wrote:
>
>> I agree too. Captioning and other media accessibility is facing a big
>> challenge internationally, especially as IP delivery becomes more and
>> more
>> common. We need to work towards global harmonisation here, which is a
>> hard
>> problem. Insistence on a US specific technical standard is not going to
>> help
>> this.
>>
>> 508 needs to capture the functional requirement, which is universal
>> access to
>> media. In certain circumstances (e.g. Broadcast TV) it might be
>> acceptable to
>> reference other legislation, which in turn may make technical
>> requirements,
>> but in general 508 should avoid requiring any specific technical
>> solutions.
>>
>> Sean Hayes
>> Standards and Policy Team
>> Corporate Accessibility Group
>> Microsoft
>> Phone:
>> mob +44 7977 455002
>> office +44 117 9719730
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
>> Sent: 17 July 2007 15:26
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Karen Peltz Strauss: "Re: multiple standards"