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: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 12:05 PM

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.. In complying with this subpart, each agency shall make available an external alerting system that is compatible with the communication products or systems it uses to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals and 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. (4) External alerting can be achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend on the needs of the individual using the product.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunnar Hellström
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


Karen,
I agree that this is good and nearly complete.

3. Your new words for no. 3, Alerting are good, if just the word "flashing" is changed to "alerting". With the advisory notes it will be evident what is required.

4. With advisory note on the video quality requirement I think the current proposed language is a good balance.

x. Regarding the need for text together with video, you are right that it will get there through other means. Video communication tools come very seldomly without simultaneous audio. And for devices supporting audio, we already have all the real-time text requirements. So it will get there.
The interpreters urge to have text when they once have had an opportunity to use it, it makes their life so much easier, as well as the user´s.
So, no change needed for that.

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




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz Strauss
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:53 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


The bulk of the language that is now on the table was proposed several weeks ago with the input of all interested parties to this discussion. It already incorporates all of the changes that had been requested. In the interest of compromise, and like Norman says, ensuring basic video communication in the near future, I am hoping that this language does not get bogged down with too many changes at this late date. Remember that we need to hand in our final proposals on this by this Friday. If we cannot reach consensus, we might have to produce nothing.

In addition, it is important to remember that this is designed to cover general procurements by federal agencies under Section 508 of the Rehab Act. Federal employees are still entitled to the particular kind of video product and flashing device that will best enable them to perform the functions of their job, under Section 501 of that Act.

Having said this, let me address the specific concerns raised:

15 versus 20 fps: a new advisory note does note the superiority of 20 frames per second.

external alerting: I think the concern about whether this requires an interface to or the direct provision of external alerting can be dealt with by changing the language in Section 3 to read:

"In complying with this subpart, each agency shall ensure it makes available an external flashing system that is compatible with the communication products or systems it uses to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals, and that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."

With respect to concerns about employees getting their choice (really a Section 501 obligation), perhaps a 4th note could be added, stating:

"External alerting can be achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend on the needs of the individual using the product."

other media: I agree with Norman that this section is about video communication for deaf employees, and we should wait till phase 2 to add real time capability to these systems. As you all know, the issue of real time text is dealt with elsewhere in the guidelines.

The revisions above will make the new section read as follows:

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.. In complying with this subpart, each agency shall ensure it makes available an external flashing system that is compatible with the communication products or systems it uses to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals and 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. (4) External alerting can be achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend on the needs of the individual using the product.

Karen



----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Williams
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Cc: 'TEITAC Committee'
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


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: = 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



__________ 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