Thread Subject: Re: Proposed Video Support text.

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: Gunnar Hellström
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 2:15 AM

This looks good,
I have a few comments:

In 3, about alerting, the user need to be allowed to select the type of
alerting that suits them, among flashes, vibration or strong sound. E.g.
deaf-blind users have little use of a flash, but very good use of video
communication (if it is combined with text.)

Proposed change of words from "must provide an external flashing system that
is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."
to: "must provide an external alerting system that is capable of alerting
users of incoming calls by flashes, vibrations or sound as selected by the
user".

In 3: There are many alerting systems on the market. Therefore, for the
videophone manufacturer it is generally more important to provide an
interface to an external alerting system than to provide the alerting
system, while for the procuring organisation it is important to provide the
whole solution to the user.
I leave to the discussion to decide if the sentence shall start with "must
provide an interface to"... or be as it is now.

In 4, I feel a sting in my heart when I see that we say that 15 fps is
sufficient for lip reading. This is a severe adaptation to reality, to
enable existing mobile equipment to be procured. It will be possible to use
them for some cumbersome signing, but not for lip-reading. The sentence
starts with "minimal", and that is good, but can we further encourage higher
frame rates to avoid jerky, unreadable video?

I suggest adding one more point about other media.
For remote sign language interpreting it is essential to have audio together
with video.
For some lip-reading users, it is essential to have audio combined with
video.
For deaf-blind users and for video relay calls, it is essential to have
real-time text or a form of text communication that the relay service
supports together with the video. It is heavily used in video relays for
things that are cumbersome to fingerspell, like phone numbers, addresses
etc.

If this is not interlinked to the sections about real-time text in some
other obvious way, I suggest to add:

x. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
inclusion of compatible audio and real-time text in the calls.


Gunnar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Tel: +46708204288
www.omnitor.se <http://www.omnitor.se/>



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner
Mary-AMB004
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1 pm ET.



This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I have made,
per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes, and a change to the
first provision to make clear that this section is not designed to require
video communications for every single federal employee.



Video Support



1. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via
point to point real time video communications and video relay services for
incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.

2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
interoperability to permit communication between and among users of
terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.

3. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must provide an
external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming
calls.

4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in
order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time
video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or
is talking in the picture.

5. 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 separate line to an
isolated communications terminal.



Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real
time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same
way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2)
Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading
and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section.
(3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading
real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found
in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.

<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en>
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en









__________ NOD32 2596 (20071017) Information __________

Detta meddelande dr genomsvkt av NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.nod32.com

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