Thread Subject: video support proposal
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: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Mon, Oct 01 2007 12:25 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Peltz Strauss
To: Michaelis, Paul R (Paul) ; BLACKLER, ELLEN (SBCSI) ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cc: Gunnar HellstrÃ¶m ; 'Norman Williams' ; Gregg Vanderheiden ; Judy Harkins
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: suggested video support language
Below is suggested language for video support. I am sending this language to a subset of the full subcommittee in the interest of trying to come to an agreement prior to next Monday. As you can see, this language seeks to achieve a number of things:
First, I want to make clear that the government must support these types of calls - this is a real concern because we continually hear reports of employees being denied video access. I think that making this video obligation absolutely clear here, in addition to mentioning the obligation generally to pass through incoming and outgoing telecom relay calls in the other section, is critical.
Second, the section requires interoperability for individuals, regardless of their end user equipment.
Third, per Peter Korn's suggestion, I am trying to define technical standards to achieve the objectives set forth by Gunnar - i.e. make clear what our goals are (signing and lip reading) and define the technical standards to achieve this.
Finally, I think we need to spell out for agencies that they must carry these calls even where they think there is a security issue (hence the little parenthetical that the subpart remains in effect), but also suggest an alternative way of achieving compliance (a direct line to the workstation).
For those of you with technical knowledge, please fix up any inappropriate references that I have used.
1.. Each agency must ensure communication access via direct point to point video communications and indirect video relay services.
2.. Communication products or systems that have the capacity to transmit video communications must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. At a minimum, video communications must support (12-20 - appropriate number?) frames per second, CIF resolution (352*288)? QCIF resolution (176*144)?) a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, and 256 kbps upload and download? in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support video communication for sign language and lip reading.
4.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual's video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a private line directly into an employee's workstation.
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: None