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: Norman Williams
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 5:35 AM

If we are asking for too much, it may deny of current products we
already have for homes (i.e. Sorenson VP100, 200, I2Eye from DLink
etc). If we use the proposed settings below, there is no videophone
product out there that supports all of them (i.e. external flashing,
real time text, and so on). VP100/200 for example do not support real
time text chat. Even Motorola's Ojo that Snapvrs is giving to deaf
people do not have external flashing, but relies on separate sound
detection flashing which is not that great.

I think our goal is allow deaf employees to have access to videophone
calls immediately. (i.e. use specs on current deaf videophones).

So, if the things we do not have now, I would suggest to save it for
phase 2. (i.e. real time text while in video call).

I do not know any video relay service provider that does video close
up to interpreter's face for a clear oral interpreting. If so, then I
would agree minimum for 20 FPS for this kind of communication.

Bottom line, are we shooting for short or long term goal? If long
term, then we are denying deaf employees into video communications
for a while until a new product comes in with those specs.

I will not be in phone conference today (kids school closes today and
have some other commitments).

Norman


On Oct 18, 2007, at 3:34 AM, Gunnar Hellström wrote:

> 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
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-telecom-
> = 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
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ 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