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 7:05 PM

Yes, when we set a date and time, we'll let you know.

At this point, it does not look like it will happen before next week's
face-to-face - but could be part of the AV SC presentation - we'll know what
kind of discussion time we will have once the agenda is released.

... Larry ...


Tom Brett wrote:

> 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