Thread Subject: Re: Three Fundamental Optionsfor caption issue.

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: Larry Goldberg
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 6:55 AM

Yes, a sidebar conversation would be useful.

Where/when?

- Larry


Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> Good point.
>
>
>
> We need a side panel discussion to work out the details.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Sean Hayes
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:55 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
> Optionsfor caption issue.
>
> But I'm not sure that would work for a container format (like Quicktime)
> which allows third party codecs to be included.
>
>
>
> Sean Hayes
> Incubation Lab
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>
>
>
> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: 29 August 2007 20:50
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
> Optionsfor caption issue.
>
>
>
> The company/organization that creates the technology specifies the preferred
> caption format ( or builds it into the technology).
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Sean Hayes
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:59 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three Fundamental
> Optionsfor caption issue.
>
> I think option 2 has the most going for it of the three, however I'm
> wondering who defines "preferred" and how.
>
> Sean Hayes
> Incubation Lab
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>
>
>
> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: 29 August 2007 19:47
> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Three Fundamental Options for caption issue.
>
>
>
> You are right. This is ongoing in two lists.
>
>
>
>
>
> How about the following to pull it all together. I think there are
> fundamentally just 3 options.
>
>
>
>
> OPTION 1: - ONE "Preferred" Caption Format per media format
>
>
>
>
> 1) MEDIA FORMATS that support audio must specify one PREFERRED format for
> captioning. (though many caption techniques may exist)
>
>
>
> 2) CONTENT must use the PREFERRED format for captioning (though it may
> provide additional redundant versions of captions in other formats as well.)
>
>
>
>
> 3) PLAYERS must support playing of captions that are in PREFERRED format
> for any media type they play (thought they may support other caption formats
> as well)
>
>
>
> 4) PLAYERS must allow captions to be turned on /off via a mechanism that
> can be discovered from the player (without advanced knowledge of activation
> sequence) OR the captions must always be rendered by the player. This
> includes stand alone players or players embedded in content where media
> controls are not usually visible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OPTION 2: - MULTIPLE "Preferred" Caption Formats per media format
>
>
>
>
> Same as option 1 except.
>
>
>
> 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have more than one PREFERRED caption formats
>
>
>
> 2) CONTENT can choose between the PREFERRED formats and implement the one
> they like.
>
>
>
> 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL PREFFERED formats (for the
> media types they play).
>
>
>
> 4)(no change to #4)
>
>
>
>
> OPTION 3: NO "Preferred" Caption Formats per media format
>
>
>
>
> Same as option 1 except
>
>
>
> 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have any number of formats. No caption format is
> required or preferred.
>
>
>
> 2) CONTENT can use any format for captioning that they like.
>
>
>
> 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL possible formats for
> captioning for their media types.
>
>
>
> 4)(no change to #4)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CONCLUSION
>
>
>
>
> Option 1 is easiest for players
>
>
>
> Option 2 is easiest and most flexible for content providers.
>
>
>
> Option 3 does not seem practical.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> -- ------------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>
>> Hoffman, Allen
>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:51 AM
>
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec.
>
>> 4.AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>
>>
>
>> If it helps:
>
>>
>
>> We have two groups talking a bit about similar topics now.
>
>> A/V and web/software, regarding both a/v content requirements
>
>> and a/v hardware/software user-agent requirements. We also
>
>> have to some extent authoring tool requirements discussion
>
>> for a/v, but in the authoring tool area this didn't come up
>
>> really with a/v specifically in mind.
>
>>
>
>> So, I think we have content-format requirements that could
>
>> include a/v requirements regarding how captions are stored,
>
>> and could include how video-description is also stored.
>
>>
>
>> I think we have specific captioning content storage format
>
>> requirements which allow for broadcast transport, e.g. 608/708.
>
>>
>
>> I think we have user-agent requirements that say things like,
>
>> provide ability to turn captions on/off if not open, ditto
>
>> for video-descriptions, and some other options. Some of this
>
>> may be scoped by type of playback platform, e.g. a DVD player
>
>> vs. a media-player running on a PC, vs. a media player taking
>
>> streaming from a web page.
>
>>
>
>> The part that's missing in web/software is user-agent part
>
>> and our user-agent requires might be defined in a/v and
>
>> scoped to fit in web/software?
>
>>
>
>> The content storage requirements should be defined in a/v and
>
>> then migrated to content format.
>
>>
>
>> The authoring tool requirements if definable should be
>
>> defined here and inserted in authoring tool section.
>
>>
>
>> I hate to say it this way but in the end most of this gets
>
>> split up here and there--but that's because a/v is so
>
>> integrated into everything now.
>
>>
>
>> So, how can we facilitate this assemblage and distribution?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>
>> Larry Goldberg
>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:37 PM
>
>> To: TEITAC AV list
>
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>
>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>
>>
>
>> I agree that this is an authoring issue, but we do need to
>
>> know what to author to and the capabilities of the engines
>
>> we're authoring for.
>
>>
>
>> ... Larry ...
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Sean Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> That's partly true. The caption data needs to be stored in a master
>
>>> format somewhere that can be converted to any and all
>
>> play-out formats
>
>>
>
>>> by the copyright owner. That does not imply that it needs to be
>
>>> converted from playback format A to playback format B by all and
>
>>> sundry. While it is technically possible for example to go
>
>> from 708 to
>
>>
>
>>> SAMI or vice-versa, it is fairly hard, likely a lossy
>
>> conversion, and
>
>>> an N-squared problem to accommodate all the playback formats.
>
>>>
>
>>> The lock in and interoperability problem today is largely
>
>> due to the
>
>>> various proprietary subtitling equipment being used and
>
>> formats at the
>
>>
>
>>> authoring level; not with the delivery format. DFXP was
>
>> created to try
>
>>
>
>>> and build a lingua-franca at the authoring level, however
>
>> it is early
>
>>> days for that process.
>
>>>
>
>>> Re-authoring for various delivery formats is the practical
>
>> reality for
>
>>
>
>>> a multiplicity of reasons, codec's; aspect ratio; resolution etc.
>
>>> Captioning should be an ingrained part of this process, just like
>
>>> audio is. If we want to put 508 constraints out there to help the
>
>>> state of captioning, the content format and authoring tools
>
>> provisions
>
>>
>
>>> may be the place to do it. The player rules are not.
>
>>>
>
>>> Sean Hayes
>
>>> Incubation Lab
>
>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>
>>> Microsoft
>
>>>
>
>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>
>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>
>>> Goldberg
>
>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 14:18
>
>>> To: TEITAC AV list
>
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>
>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>
>>>
>
>>> The caption data need to be interoperable, not the playback media.
>
>>> That is, we can readily convert 608 to 708 to SMIL to SAMI to DFXP
>
>>> caption formats. A new format developed by HD-DVD and/or
>
>> BluRay to be
>
>>> functionally equivalent to 708 needs to be readily
>
>> transferable to and
>
>> from other accepted formats.
>
>>> If this is not the case, then a government agency would be
>
>> forced to
>
>>> re-author their captions for this special new format (anticipating
>
>>> that media will be distributed in multiple formats for training and
>
>>> public information).
>
>>>
>
>>> - Larry
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Sean Hayes wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>> What do you mean by interoperability here? And why is this
>
>> an issue?
>
>>>> the world is full of non interoperable systems, Flash, HTML, Java,
>
>>>> SMIL, blah blah blah.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> If an agency picked VHS then they couldn't play it back on
>
>> computers
>
>>>> or DVD players. If they picked Flash to publish a
>
>> multimedia course
>
>>>> then they couldn't use a Java player to view it.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> If an agency wants to do electronic distribution, they
>
>> would need to
>
>>>> procure a complete system. If for example the agency chose to use
>
>>>> windows media for something, then they would need to acquire tools
>
>>>> that can generate, caption, and stream it, and players to view it.
>
>>>> There exists many tools for importing and exporting various media
>
>>>> formats if that is an issue.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> I don't see any new problem here which isn't true of all E&IT.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Sean Hayes
>
>>>> Incubation Lab
>
>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>
>>>> Microsoft
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>
>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>
>>>>
>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>
>>>> Vanderheiden
>
>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 04:19
>
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
>
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>
>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Thanks
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Couple questions about the part where you changed it to "Uses this
>
>>>> standard...
>
>>>> Captions or timed text (as defined by procuring agency) or display
>
>>>> open caption video"
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> - How would you get interoperability if each agency picks its own
>
>> standards?
>
>>>> - Will purchasing agents have any idea what to specify?
>
>>>> - And how would a mfgr know how to design products if they
>
>> don't know
>
>>
>
>>>> what standard will apply until the get the P.O.?
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Maybe I'm missing something
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Thanks
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Gregg
>
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>>

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