Thread Subject: Re: Enable/disable Captions

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: Greg Fields
Date: Thu, Oct 25 2007 8:35 AM

Thank you Karen,

Your proposal seems to make sense in principle. I would defer to TV
vendors for their feedback.

Regarding controls in devices like those in 4A-2, I would concur with
your comment -

"... that we not impose inappropriate obligations on products that, in
the past, were not traditionally used for television programming, such
as cell phones ..."

- and propose that we not create additional language to handle CC/DV
controls for 4A-2. This requirement for enable/disable CC/DV
functionality is already noted in 6C.

-Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:47 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-committee] Enable/disable Captions

Given the turn in our discussion, I am going to propose some very simple

language for the captioning and video description controls that apply to

products under 4A.1:

"For products that are covered under subpart 4-A.1, the user controls
needed
to access closed captioning and video description must be comparable in
prominence to the controls needed to control volume and program
selection."
(followed by the examples we have agreed on)

Rationale: Much of the debate that we had over the past few weeks was
an
attempt to ensure that we not impose inappropriate obligations on
products
that, in the past, were not traditionally used for television
programming,
such as cell phones, PDAs, and smaller or computer-type electronic
devices.
4-A.1 ONLY applies to television receivers/tuners that are covered under
the
FCC's captioning rules. These devices routinely have remote controls,
and
always have a hardware place to control volume and program selection -
on
the remote control and sometimes on the television apparatus. Thus, we
no
longer need the phrase at the end that had begun with "where available."
I
have also removed the phrase "in at least one location" because for
these
types of devices, where there is typically a physical (hard) control,
there
needs to be a similarly hard control for these accessibility features.
As I
mentioned yesterday, I am concerned, like Gregg, that if there is a
second
place to control the volume and program selection on a menu, the "at
least
one location" language would allow placement of the captioning/vd
controls
to be buried there, and we are back where we started from. If, as Larry

suggested yesterday, television type devices do not typically have this
alternative - then the outcome is still the same.

I am hoping this language for products under 4-A.1is acceptable to the
group. I remain open to different language to cover the other types of
devices. However, I do not recall that we agreed on not requiring
prominence for these controls on those types of devices. Remember, the
whole point of this is not just to have controls, but to place them in a

location where users can find them.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Hayes" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-committee] Enable/disable Captions


> Here is my recollection of what we determined:
>
> We would use the definition in 4A.1 as the type of products for which
> equal prominence was required.
>
> Products as defined in 4A.2 would also need some means of turning them

> on/off, however as we have less understanding of emerging non TV form
> factors, and with the assumption that obtaining video on such devices
> already requires a relative degree of user sophistication, we would
not
> require equal prominence in those cases, so this is already covered by
6C.
>
> We also decided we would restrict the prominence requirement to just
> captions and video description controls.
>
> We noted we do not currently have equal wording to 4A for video
> descriptions. Larry proposed rewording 4B to mirror 4A, however I'm
not
> sure exactly what that would look like.
>
> We agreed to move the proposed language out of 4A into its own
provision
> and simply reference 4A.1 for its scope, however on reading it again
it
> seems rather than make a new provision it would be better to add it to
6C.
>
> Thus 6C would now read:
>
> 6C - Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions
> At the time of playback, captions and/or video descriptions must be
either
> (a) capable of being turned on and off ("closed"), or (b) visible or
> audible to all users ("open").
>
> For products as defined in 4A.1 the controls to turn on or off
captions
> and/or video descriptions must be comparable in prominence, in at
least
> one location, to controls provided to control volume, or perform
program
> selection, where the ability to control these features is otherwise
> provided.
>
> -- personally I'm not sure the "where the ability..." part is strictly

> necessary.
>
>
> If this is consistent with everyone else's notes, I suggest we forward
to
> the EWG for inclusion this Friday.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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: 25 October 2007 03:27
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-committee] Enable/disable Captions
>
> Not sure of the deadlines, but I am on the road all day tomorrow and
tied
> up
> much of Friday.
>
> If anyone else has good notes of our call and can post the latest,
that
> would be great.
>
> ... Larry ...
>
>

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