Thread Subject: Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 10:55 AM

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

Thanks Jim - you are right - though I am confident that many of us are
dedicated to assuring consumer interests are the highest priority.

... Larry ...


James Elekes wrote:

> Larry,
>
> Don't know whether necessary but, it appears no consumers involved.
> If needed, I'll represent that group.
>
> -Jim
>
> James J. Elekes, Chairperson
> Telecommunications, Electronic/Information Technologies Committee
> United States Access Board
>
> (O) 888.564.8430
>
>
>
> At 12:28 PM 8/30/2007, you wrote:
>> 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: Tom Brett: "Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue."
• Previous message in Thread: James Elekes: "Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue."