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: Tom Brett
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 3:55 PM

Will these sidebar meetings be closed captioned...If so I would like to
participate.

Tom Brett

-----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.
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>

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