Thread Subject: Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 10:35 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: James Elekes: "Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue."
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue."
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Thanks.

I'll communicate with the interested parties directly.

... Larry ...


Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> With you and Allen the list looks like
>
> Larry G - Chair
> Sean H
> Andrew K
> Gregg V
> Allen H
> Greg F
>
> Anyone else?
>
> (notice Larry that this is hereby transferred back to you - grin)
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>> Of Greg Fields
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:09 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
>> FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.
>>
>> Please add myself to the list as we produce our own
>> Java-based media player for BlackBerry.
>>
>> Greg Fields, CUA
>> Accessibility Product Manager
>> Handheld Product Management
>> Research In Motion (RIM)
>> Telephone: 1 519 888 7465, ext.3867
>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> URL: http://www.blackberry.com/accessibility
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
>> Allen
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:01 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
>> FundamentalOptionsfor caption issue.
>>
>> Add me to the list please.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>> Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:56 AM
>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>> Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>
>> Perhaps we should start out with Who and then find a time.
>>
>>
>>> From the call and this email I think there is
>>
>> Sean,
>> Andrew
>> Gregg
>> Larry
>> Others want to volunteer?
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>>> Goldberg
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:48 AM
>>> To: TEITAC AV list; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>

• Next message in Thread: James Elekes: "Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue."
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue."