Thread Subject: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 8:50 AM
Subject: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV Subcommittee
meeting today.

But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable to
attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and act on
the following:

1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and provide
comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved. Comments
should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way - they can be
posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.

Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:

A) Subpart A Definitions
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definitions

Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe we
have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire need:

" The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:
Section 1194.4 Definitions:
CAPTIONS:
Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information. Captions
are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of spoken dialogue,
but also include text for non-spoken information such as important sound
effects, music, laughter, and speaker identification and location. Captions
should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key information. In some
countries captions are called subtitles.

VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:
The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details that are
not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio output alone.
Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program and are
usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide
information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who are
blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know what is
happening on the screen."

B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or Players/Displays

http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Provis
ions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays

C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia (Format)

http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimedia_.
28Format.29

D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...
- Synchronized Alternatives
- Captions and Transcripts
- Video Description and Full Text Equivalents
- Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions

http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Audio_a
nd.2For_Video_Content


2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
face-to-face.

We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP (the
committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).

- Larry

From: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Fri, Jul 13 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

Folks: Please see comments below.



4-A - Caption Playback



Comments:

1. In the second box, please note that the following devices may not
contain display capabilities, and thus must either pass the data to a
DTV display or decode the data and pass an open-captioned signal to the
DTV display or monitor:

* Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
display screens
* Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display
circuitry

In addition, videotape (VCR) or DVD source devices cannot provide
CEA-708 data. Therefore these source devices should not be included in
this section.



I suggest the following changes:

* Wide-screen (16:9) digital television (DTV) displays measuring
at least 7.8 inches vertically
* DTV sets with conventional (4:3) displays measuring at least 13
inches diagonally
* Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
display screens
* Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display
circuitry

CEA 708

Receive, decode and display digital video signals

* broadcast
* cable
* satellite
* IPTV

OR

* Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal
to the DTV display or monitor



2. We cannot agree with a requirement to require decoding of CEA-708 in
devices that are not currently required to do so by FCC rules. As a
compromise, however, I suggest that we add "or functional equivalent" to
the middle box as below. I also strongly object to calling out specific
product brand names. These requirements should apply to all digital
video source devices, such as PCs, and should not be aimed at a select
technology or product category. All digital video source devices should
have similar requirements to provide captions when used to play video
content on a DTV display or monitor.



* Other digital video source devices

CEA 708 or
functional equivalent

* Pass data, when available, to the caption decoding circuitry of
DTV displays

OR

* Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal
to the DTV display or monitor



3. CEA-708 is a very extensive standard, and the FCC does not require
DTV receivers to implement all of its features. I think the TETIAC
guidelines should defer to the FCC rules which define the sections of
CEA-708 that devices must support. Perhaps just a footnote is needed to
clarify this.



6.3-E - Interactive Elements

All materials containing interactive elements that are part of the
content must comply with 1194.21 [a-z] as well as 1194.24 a-e.



Comments:

1. I think a definition of an "interactive element" is needed for this
section.



2. A concern with Sec 6.3-E that is more of a question: Is the intent
here to impose all of the web/software requirements currently being
discussed onto consumer electronic video playback devices? My concern
is that this could potentially prohibit a whole class of devices, such
as DVD players, from government use. For example, DVDs authored with
talking menus could be considered to contain "interactive elements", but
I am not sure if these would fully comply with the requirements of
1194.21 today? Since the web/software section is intended to primarily
address PCs, I am really apprehensive that these requirements may not be
able to be met by consumer-grade media players. I think this area
requires more discussion.



Thanks, Paul



Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager

Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:45 AM
To: TEITAC AV list
Subject: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
Importance: High



In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV Subcommittee
meeting today.



But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable to
attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and act
on the following:



1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and
provide comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved.
Comments should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way -
they can be posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.



Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:



A) Subpart A Definitions

http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definit
ions



Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe
we have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire need:



" The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:

Section 1194.4 Definitions:

CAPTIONS:

Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of
spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken information such
as important sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker identification
and location. Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
information. In some countries captions are called subtitles.



VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:

The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details that
are not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio
output alone.

Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program and
are usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide
information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who
are blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know
what is happening on the screen."



B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or
Players/Displays



http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Pr
ovisions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays



C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia
(Format)



http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimed
ia_28Format.29



D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...

- Synchronized Alternatives

- Captions and Transcripts

- Video Description and Full Text Equivalents

- Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions



http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Aud
io_and.2For_Video_Content





2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
face-to-face.



We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP
(the committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).



- Larry

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Fri, Jul 13 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

Paul raises some important points here, which I will respond to interspersed
below. I don't believe we will be able to settle these issues right here and
now and can raise them again, as we did at the last face-to-face.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meetings in DC next week, so
will not be able to press my case on the issue Paul raises below. Tony
Jasionowski, also from Panasonic, will be leading the AV subcommittee
discussion and I am confident he and other members of the subcommittee will
give a fair hearing to all sides of these last remaining issues:


Schomburg, Paul wrote:

> 4-A - Caption Playback
> Comments:
>
> 1. In the second box, please note that the following devices may not
> contain display capabilities, and thus must either pass the data to a
> DTV display or decode the data and pass an open-captioned signal to the
> DTV display or monitor:
>
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display
> circuitry
>
> In addition, videotape (VCR) or DVD source devices cannot provide
> CEA-708 data. Therefore these source devices should not be included in
> this section.

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot support
708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS - it says
videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can support 708 data
playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can do just that).

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing more
and more like the original oversight of not having support of caption data
in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in the new
generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be rectified, as it
was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements or pressure - this
was a private industry fix made by the standards bodies and manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD format,
the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future video source
devices.


> I suggest the following changes:
>
> * Wide-screen (16:9) digital television (DTV) displays measuring
> at least 7.8 inches vertically
> * DTV sets with conventional (4:3) displays measuring at least 13
> inches diagonally
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display
> circuitry
>
> CEA 708
>
> Receive, decode and display digital video signals
>
> * broadcast
> * cable
> * satellite
> * IPTV
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal
> to the DTV display or monitor

That's how it works with cable and satellite set-top boxes (passing through
an open-captioned signal) and that should work as well in the way Paul
indicates above. Agreed.


> 2. We cannot agree with a requirement to require decoding of CEA-708 in
> devices that are not currently required to do so by FCC rules. As a
> compromise, however, I suggest that we add "or functional equivalent" to
> the middle box as below. I also strongly object to calling out specific
> product brand names. These requirements should apply to all digital
> video source devices, such as PCs, and should not be aimed at a select
> technology or product category. All digital video source devices should
> have similar requirements to provide captions when used to play video
> content on a DTV display or monitor.

FCC rules do not govern 508 rules. If they did, then we shouldn't be
requiring 608 caption data playback on conventional DVDs (see first box) and
yet we do and have for years. So a 508 requirement for 708 support in the
new DVD formats isn't determined by FCC rules. The questions is, do we want
to do so?

As for "calling out specific products names," Paul means using "BluRay" and
"HD-DVD" - but is this so different than saying "DVD" above? If we don't say
those names specifically, how will procurement agents know what we are
talking about. If we say vaguely "video source devices" only, does that
cover other equipment that other manufacturers will object to. How about an
iPod or an iPhone? They are video source devices and can neither decode nor
pass on 708 data? Should they?

> * Other digital video source devices
>
> CEA 708 or
> functional equivalent
>
> * Pass data, when available, to the caption decoding circuitry of
> DTV displays
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal
> to the DTV display or monitor

Using "functional equivalent" language with defining what the functions are,
in detail, leaves a wide open hole for all kinds of experimental ways of
displaying text. Do we want that?

>
> 3. CEA-708 is a very extensive standard, and the FCC does not require
> DTV receivers to implement all of its features. I think the TETIAC
> guidelines should defer to the FCC rules which define the sections of
> CEA-708 that devices must support. Perhaps just a footnote is needed to
> clarify this.

It is true that, for instance, the 708 standard has provisions for up to 63
caption channels per program (!) while the FCC rules require only 6. We can
and should point to the subsection of 708 that the FCC mandates for support
within DTV tuners and STBs. A footnote could refer to:

FCC Docket 00-259
Adopted: July 21, 2000
Released: July 31, 2000

In the Matter of

Closed Captioning Requirements for
Digital Television Receivers

Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation
of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming
Accessibility


> 6.3-E - Interactive Elements
This section was not written by our subcommittee so I can't comment on the
intent of the authors.

And with that, I'm off on vacation for a week - good luck!

- Larry


>
> All materials containing interactive elements that are part of the
> content must comply with 1194.21 [a-z] as well as 1194.24 a-e.
>
> Comments:
>
> 1. I think a definition of an "interactive element" is needed for this
> section.
>
>
>
> 2. A concern with Sec 6.3-E that is more of a question: Is the intent
> here to impose all of the web/software requirements currently being
> discussed onto consumer electronic video playback devices? My concern
> is that this could potentially prohibit a whole class of devices, such
> as DVD players, from government use. For example, DVDs authored with
> talking menus could be considered to contain "interactive elements", but
> I am not sure if these would fully comply with the requirements of
> 1194.21 today? Since the web/software section is intended to primarily
> address PCs, I am really apprehensive that these requirements may not be
> able to be met by consumer-grade media players. I think this area
> requires more discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV Subcommittee
> meeting today.
>
>
>
> But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
> Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable to
> attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and act
> on the following:
>
>
>
> 1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and
> provide comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved.
> Comments should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way -
> they can be posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.
>
>
>
> Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:
>
>
>
> A) Subpart A Definitions
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definit
> ions
>
>
>
> Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe
> we have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire need:
>
>
>
> " The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:
>
> Section 1194.4 Definitions:
>
> CAPTIONS:
>
> Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
> Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of
> spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken information such
> as important sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker identification
> and location. Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
> information. In some countries captions are called subtitles.
>
>
>
> VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:
>
> The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details that
> are not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio
> output alone.
>
> Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program and
> are usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide
> information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
> without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who
> are blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know
> what is happening on the screen."
>
>
>
> B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or
> Players/Displays
>
>
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Pr
> ovisions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays
>
>
>
> C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia
> (Format)
>
>
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimed
> ia_28Format.29
>
>
>
> D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...
>
> - Synchronized Alternatives
>
> - Captions and Transcripts
>
> - Video Description and Full Text Equivalents
>
> - Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions
>
>
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Aud
> io_and.2For_Video_Content
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
> face-to-face.
>
>
>
> We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP
> (the committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).
>
>
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2007 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

Folks: With regard to Larry's comments, please see the following
responses [in brackets]:

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
support 708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS -
it says videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can
support 708 data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can
do just that).

[Agreed. There are digital VHS recorders, such as those marketed by JVC,
that support CEA-708. Such recorders, if they include a DTV tuner, would
be required by the FCC to decode and display 708 captions.]

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
bodies and manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
format,
the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future video source

devices.

[BluRay and HD-DVD do have a way to support recording of CEA-708 data.
If a recorder includes DTV tuning capability, the product would be
required, per FCC rules, to decode and display 708 captions. Consumer
devices designed to play back prepackaged media, such as motion
pictures, do not include a DTV reception capability and thus not include
708 decoding capability. In this case, "subtitles for the deaf and hard
of hearing" provide a functional equivalent means of providing captions.


It is important that the output of TEITAC treat all media player devices
similarly, and not place a burden on one particular type of device
(unless required by law or regulation, such as DTV receivers). At the
same time, equivalent functionality should be expected of all types of
media playback devices. Players of prepackaged media (e.g. BluRay or
HD-DVD) should have the same requirements as other media players, such
as portable media players (iPods, etc.) or personal computers. In the
future media content will be increasingly downloaded or streamed from
the Internet, recorded and played on a variety of devices. TEITAC
should not attempt to force such devices to use a timed text format
(708) that was designed for broadcast applications. Of course, content
providers or device manufacturers may choose to employ 708-formated
captions, but in many cases they may choose alternative formats that
provide equivalent functionality. TEITAC should not second guess what
technology developers choose to employ, but only specify the
functionality necessary in the end result that government employs.]

Thanks, Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:11 PM
To: TEITAC AV list
Cc: Mike Paciello
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
DRAFT

Paul raises some important points here, which I will respond to
interspersed
below. I don't believe we will be able to settle these issues right here
and
now and can raise them again, as we did at the last face-to-face.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meetings in DC next
week, so
will not be able to press my case on the issue Paul raises below. Tony
Jasionowski, also from Panasonic, will be leading the AV subcommittee
discussion and I am confident he and other members of the subcommittee
will
give a fair hearing to all sides of these last remaining issues:


Schomburg, Paul wrote:

> 4-A - Caption Playback
> Comments:
>
> 1. In the second box, please note that the following devices may not
> contain display capabilities, and thus must either pass the data to a
> DTV display or decode the data and pass an open-captioned signal to
the
> DTV display or monitor:
>
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display
> circuitry
>
> In addition, videotape (VCR) or DVD source devices cannot provide
> CEA-708 data. Therefore these source devices should not be included
in
> this section.

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
support
708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS - it says
videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can support 708
data
playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can do just that).

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
more
and more like the original oversight of not having support of caption
data
in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in the new
generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be rectified, as
it
was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements or pressure -
this
was a private industry fix made by the standards bodies and
manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
format,
the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future video source
devices.


> I suggest the following changes:
>
> * Wide-screen (16:9) digital television (DTV) displays measuring
> at least 7.8 inches vertically
> * DTV sets with conventional (4:3) displays measuring at least 13
> inches diagonally
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display
> circuitry
>
> CEA 708
>
> Receive, decode and display digital video signals
>
> * broadcast
> * cable
> * satellite
> * IPTV
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal
> to the DTV display or monitor

That's how it works with cable and satellite set-top boxes (passing
through
an open-captioned signal) and that should work as well in the way Paul
indicates above. Agreed.


> 2. We cannot agree with a requirement to require decoding of CEA-708
in
> devices that are not currently required to do so by FCC rules. As a
> compromise, however, I suggest that we add "or functional equivalent"
to
> the middle box as below. I also strongly object to calling out
specific
> product brand names. These requirements should apply to all digital
> video source devices, such as PCs, and should not be aimed at a select
> technology or product category. All digital video source devices
should
> have similar requirements to provide captions when used to play video
> content on a DTV display or monitor.

FCC rules do not govern 508 rules. If they did, then we shouldn't be
requiring 608 caption data playback on conventional DVDs (see first box)
and
yet we do and have for years. So a 508 requirement for 708 support in
the
new DVD formats isn't determined by FCC rules. The questions is, do we
want
to do so?

As for "calling out specific products names," Paul means using "BluRay"
and
"HD-DVD" - but is this so different than saying "DVD" above? If we don't
say
those names specifically, how will procurement agents know what we are
talking about. If we say vaguely "video source devices" only, does that
cover other equipment that other manufacturers will object to. How about
an
iPod or an iPhone? They are video source devices and can neither decode
nor
pass on 708 data? Should they?

> * Other digital video source devices
>
> CEA 708 or
> functional equivalent
>
> * Pass data, when available, to the caption decoding circuitry of
> DTV displays
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal
> to the DTV display or monitor

Using "functional equivalent" language with defining what the functions
are,
in detail, leaves a wide open hole for all kinds of experimental ways of
displaying text. Do we want that?

>
> 3. CEA-708 is a very extensive standard, and the FCC does not require
> DTV receivers to implement all of its features. I think the TETIAC
> guidelines should defer to the FCC rules which define the sections of
> CEA-708 that devices must support. Perhaps just a footnote is needed
to
> clarify this.

It is true that, for instance, the 708 standard has provisions for up to
63
caption channels per program (!) while the FCC rules require only 6. We
can
and should point to the subsection of 708 that the FCC mandates for
support
within DTV tuners and STBs. A footnote could refer to:

FCC Docket 00-259
Adopted: July 21, 2000
Released: July 31, 2000

In the Matter of

Closed Captioning Requirements for
Digital Television Receivers

Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming,
Implementation
of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming
Accessibility


> 6.3-E - Interactive Elements
This section was not written by our subcommittee so I can't comment on
the
intent of the authors.

And with that, I'm off on vacation for a week - good luck!

- Larry


>
> All materials containing interactive elements that are part of the
> content must comply with 1194.21 [a-z] as well as 1194.24 a-e.
>
> Comments:
>
> 1. I think a definition of an "interactive element" is needed for
this
> section.
>
>
>
> 2. A concern with Sec 6.3-E that is more of a question: Is the
intent
> here to impose all of the web/software requirements currently being
> discussed onto consumer electronic video playback devices? My concern
> is that this could potentially prohibit a whole class of devices, such
> as DVD players, from government use. For example, DVDs authored with
> talking menus could be considered to contain "interactive elements",
but
> I am not sure if these would fully comply with the requirements of
> 1194.21 today? Since the web/software section is intended to
primarily
> address PCs, I am really apprehensive that these requirements may not
be
> able to be met by consumer-grade media players. I think this area
> requires more discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV
Subcommittee
> meeting today.
>
>
>
> But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
> Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable
to
> attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and
act
> on the following:
>
>
>
> 1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and
> provide comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved.
> Comments should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way
-
> they can be posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.
>
>
>
> Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:
>
>
>
> A) Subpart A Definitions
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definit
> ions
>
>
>
> Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe
> we have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire
need:
>
>
>
> " The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:
>
> Section 1194.4 Definitions:
>
> CAPTIONS:
>
> Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
> Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of
> spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken information such
> as important sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker
identification
> and location. Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
> information. In some countries captions are called subtitles.
>
>
>
> VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:
>
> The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details
that
> are not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio
> output alone.
>
> Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program
and
> are usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide
> information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
> without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who
> are blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know
> what is happening on the screen."
>
>
>
> B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or
> Players/Displays
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Pr
> ovisions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays
>
>
>
> C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia
> (Format)
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimed
> ia_28Format.29
>
>
>
> D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...
>
> - Synchronized Alternatives
>
> - Captions and Transcripts
>
> - Video Description and Full Text Equivalents
>
> - Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Aud
> io_and.2For_Video_Content
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
> face-to-face.
>
>
>
> We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP
> (the committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).
>
>
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

I want to say I concur with Paul completely.

Paul, you say this more effectively than I but are representing exactly
my thinking.

What we want is captioning information available where ever the media is
viewed, so we should reflect that in our standards. Saying captioning
must be in specific protocols for everything seems almost impossible at
this time, so we need to leave the first requirement in place,
captioning everywhere, and then define where we do have specifics that
don't place any great burden on content developers or broadcasters or
media player folks.







Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Schomburg,
Paul
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:19 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
DRAFT

Folks: With regard to Larry's comments, please see the following
responses [in brackets]:

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
support 708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS -
it says videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can
support 708 data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can
do just that).

[Agreed. There are digital VHS recorders, such as those marketed by JVC,
that support CEA-708. Such recorders, if they include a DTV tuner, would
be required by the FCC to decode and display 708 captions.]

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
bodies and manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
video source

devices.

[BluRay and HD-DVD do have a way to support recording of CEA-708 data.
If a recorder includes DTV tuning capability, the product would be
required, per FCC rules, to decode and display 708 captions. Consumer
devices designed to play back prepackaged media, such as motion
pictures, do not include a DTV reception capability and thus not include
708 decoding capability. In this case, "subtitles for the deaf and hard
of hearing" provide a functional equivalent means of providing captions.


It is important that the output of TEITAC treat all media player devices
similarly, and not place a burden on one particular type of device
(unless required by law or regulation, such as DTV receivers). At the
same time, equivalent functionality should be expected of all types of
media playback devices. Players of prepackaged media (e.g. BluRay or
HD-DVD) should have the same requirements as other media players, such
as portable media players (iPods, etc.) or personal computers. In the
future media content will be increasingly downloaded or streamed from
the Internet, recorded and played on a variety of devices. TEITAC
should not attempt to force such devices to use a timed text format
(708) that was designed for broadcast applications. Of course, content
providers or device manufacturers may choose to employ 708-formated
captions, but in many cases they may choose alternative formats that
provide equivalent functionality. TEITAC should not second guess what
technology developers choose to employ, but only specify the
functionality necessary in the end result that government employs.]

Thanks, Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:11 PM
To: TEITAC AV list
Cc: Mike Paciello
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
DRAFT

Paul raises some important points here, which I will respond to
interspersed below. I don't believe we will be able to settle these
issues right here and now and can raise them again, as we did at the
last face-to-face.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meetings in DC next
week, so will not be able to press my case on the issue Paul raises
below. Tony Jasionowski, also from Panasonic, will be leading the AV
subcommittee discussion and I am confident he and other members of the
subcommittee will give a fair hearing to all sides of these last
remaining issues:


Schomburg, Paul wrote:

> 4-A - Caption Playback
> Comments:
>
> 1. In the second box, please note that the following devices may not
> contain display capabilities, and thus must either pass the data to a
> DTV display or decode the data and pass an open-captioned signal to
the
> DTV display or monitor:
>
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>
> In addition, videotape (VCR) or DVD source devices cannot provide
> CEA-708 data. Therefore these source devices should not be included
in
> this section.

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
support
708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS - it says
videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can support 708
data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can do just
that).

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
bodies and manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
video source devices.


> I suggest the following changes:
>
> * Wide-screen (16:9) digital television (DTV) displays measuring at
> least 7.8 inches vertically
> * DTV sets with conventional (4:3) displays measuring at least 13
> inches diagonally
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>
> CEA 708
>
> Receive, decode and display digital video signals
>
> * broadcast
> * cable
> * satellite
> * IPTV
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
> the DTV display or monitor

That's how it works with cable and satellite set-top boxes (passing
through an open-captioned signal) and that should work as well in the
way Paul indicates above. Agreed.


> 2. We cannot agree with a requirement to require decoding of CEA-708
in
> devices that are not currently required to do so by FCC rules. As a
> compromise, however, I suggest that we add "or functional equivalent"
to
> the middle box as below. I also strongly object to calling out
specific
> product brand names. These requirements should apply to all digital
> video source devices, such as PCs, and should not be aimed at a select

> technology or product category. All digital video source devices
should
> have similar requirements to provide captions when used to play video
> content on a DTV display or monitor.

FCC rules do not govern 508 rules. If they did, then we shouldn't be
requiring 608 caption data playback on conventional DVDs (see first box)
and yet we do and have for years. So a 508 requirement for 708 support
in the new DVD formats isn't determined by FCC rules. The questions is,
do we want to do so?

As for "calling out specific products names," Paul means using "BluRay"
and
"HD-DVD" - but is this so different than saying "DVD" above? If we don't
say those names specifically, how will procurement agents know what we
are talking about. If we say vaguely "video source devices" only, does
that cover other equipment that other manufacturers will object to. How
about an iPod or an iPhone? They are video source devices and can
neither decode nor pass on 708 data? Should they?

> * Other digital video source devices
>
> CEA 708 or
> functional equivalent
>
> * Pass data, when available, to the caption decoding circuitry of DTV
> displays
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
> the DTV display or monitor

Using "functional equivalent" language with defining what the functions
are, in detail, leaves a wide open hole for all kinds of experimental
ways of displaying text. Do we want that?

>
> 3. CEA-708 is a very extensive standard, and the FCC does not require

> DTV receivers to implement all of its features. I think the TETIAC
> guidelines should defer to the FCC rules which define the sections of
> CEA-708 that devices must support. Perhaps just a footnote is needed
to
> clarify this.

It is true that, for instance, the 708 standard has provisions for up to
63
caption channels per program (!) while the FCC rules require only 6. We
can and should point to the subsection of 708 that the FCC mandates for
support within DTV tuners and STBs. A footnote could refer to:

FCC Docket 00-259
Adopted: July 21, 2000
Released: July 31, 2000

In the Matter of

Closed Captioning Requirements for
Digital Television Receivers

Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming,
Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Video Programming Accessibility


> 6.3-E - Interactive Elements
This section was not written by our subcommittee so I can't comment on
the intent of the authors.

And with that, I'm off on vacation for a week - good luck!

- Larry


>
> All materials containing interactive elements that are part of the
> content must comply with 1194.21 [a-z] as well as 1194.24 a-e.
>
> Comments:
>
> 1. I think a definition of an "interactive element" is needed for
this
> section.
>
>
>
> 2. A concern with Sec 6.3-E that is more of a question: Is the
intent
> here to impose all of the web/software requirements currently being
> discussed onto consumer electronic video playback devices? My concern

> is that this could potentially prohibit a whole class of devices, such

> as DVD players, from government use. For example, DVDs authored with
> talking menus could be considered to contain "interactive elements",
but
> I am not sure if these would fully comply with the requirements of
> 1194.21 today? Since the web/software section is intended to
primarily
> address PCs, I am really apprehensive that these requirements may not
be
> able to be met by consumer-grade media players. I think this area
> requires more discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV
Subcommittee
> meeting today.
>
>
>
> But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
> Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable
to
> attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and
act
> on the following:
>
>
>
> 1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and
> provide comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved.
> Comments should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way
-
> they can be posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.
>
>
>
> Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:
>
>
>
> A) Subpart A Definitions
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definit
> ions
>
>
>
> Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe

> we have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire
need:
>
>
>
> " The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:
>
> Section 1194.4 Definitions:
>
> CAPTIONS:
>
> Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
> Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of
> spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken information such

> as important sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker
identification
> and location. Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
> information. In some countries captions are called subtitles.
>
>
>
> VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:
>
> The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details
that
> are not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio
> output alone.
>
> Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program
and
> are usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide

> information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
> without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who
> are blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know
> what is happening on the screen."
>
>
>
> B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or
> Players/Displays
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Pr
> ovisions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays
>
>
>
> C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia
> (Format)
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimed
> ia_28Format.29
>
>
>
> D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...
>
> - Synchronized Alternatives
>
> - Captions and Transcripts
>
> - Video Description and Full Text Equivalents
>
> - Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Aud
> io_and.2For_Video_Content
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
> face-to-face.
>
>
>
> We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP

> (the committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).
>
>
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

I agree too. Captioning and other media accessibility is facing a big challenge internationally, especially as IP delivery becomes more and more common. We need to work towards global harmonisation here, which is a hard problem. Insistence on a US specific technical standard is not going to help this.

508 needs to capture the functional requirement, which is universal access to media. In certain circumstances (e.g. Broadcast TV) it might be acceptable to reference other legislation, which in turn may make technical requirements, but in general 508 should avoid requiring any specific technical solutions.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Corporate Accessibility Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: 17 July 2007 15:26
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

I want to say I concur with Paul completely.

Paul, you say this more effectively than I but are representing exactly
my thinking.

What we want is captioning information available where ever the media is
viewed, so we should reflect that in our standards. Saying captioning
must be in specific protocols for everything seems almost impossible at
this time, so we need to leave the first requirement in place,
captioning everywhere, and then define where we do have specifics that
don't place any great burden on content developers or broadcasters or
media player folks.







Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Schomburg,
Paul
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:19 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
DRAFT

Folks: With regard to Larry's comments, please see the following
responses [in brackets]:

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
support 708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS -
it says videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can
support 708 data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can
do just that).

[Agreed. There are digital VHS recorders, such as those marketed by JVC,
that support CEA-708. Such recorders, if they include a DTV tuner, would
be required by the FCC to decode and display 708 captions.]

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
bodies and manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
video source

devices.

[BluRay and HD-DVD do have a way to support recording of CEA-708 data.
If a recorder includes DTV tuning capability, the product would be
required, per FCC rules, to decode and display 708 captions. Consumer
devices designed to play back prepackaged media, such as motion
pictures, do not include a DTV reception capability and thus not include
708 decoding capability. In this case, "subtitles for the deaf and hard
of hearing" provide a functional equivalent means of providing captions.


It is important that the output of TEITAC treat all media player devices
similarly, and not place a burden on one particular type of device
(unless required by law or regulation, such as DTV receivers). At the
same time, equivalent functionality should be expected of all types of
media playback devices. Players of prepackaged media (e.g. BluRay or
HD-DVD) should have the same requirements as other media players, such
as portable media players (iPods, etc.) or personal computers. In the
future media content will be increasingly downloaded or streamed from
the Internet, recorded and played on a variety of devices. TEITAC
should not attempt to force such devices to use a timed text format
(708) that was designed for broadcast applications. Of course, content
providers or device manufacturers may choose to employ 708-formated
captions, but in many cases they may choose alternative formats that
provide equivalent functionality. TEITAC should not second guess what
technology developers choose to employ, but only specify the
functionality necessary in the end result that government employs.]

Thanks, Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:11 PM
To: TEITAC AV list
Cc: Mike Paciello
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
DRAFT

Paul raises some important points here, which I will respond to
interspersed below. I don't believe we will be able to settle these
issues right here and now and can raise them again, as we did at the
last face-to-face.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meetings in DC next
week, so will not be able to press my case on the issue Paul raises
below. Tony Jasionowski, also from Panasonic, will be leading the AV
subcommittee discussion and I am confident he and other members of the
subcommittee will give a fair hearing to all sides of these last
remaining issues:


Schomburg, Paul wrote:

> 4-A - Caption Playback
> Comments:
>
> 1. In the second box, please note that the following devices may not
> contain display capabilities, and thus must either pass the data to a
> DTV display or decode the data and pass an open-captioned signal to
the
> DTV display or monitor:
>
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>
> In addition, videotape (VCR) or DVD source devices cannot provide
> CEA-708 data. Therefore these source devices should not be included
in
> this section.

Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
support
708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS - it says
videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can support 708
data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can do just
that).

As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
bodies and manufacturers).

So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
video source devices.


> I suggest the following changes:
>
> * Wide-screen (16:9) digital television (DTV) displays measuring at
> least 7.8 inches vertically
> * DTV sets with conventional (4:3) displays measuring at least 13
> inches diagonally
> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
> display screens
> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>
> CEA 708
>
> Receive, decode and display digital video signals
>
> * broadcast
> * cable
> * satellite
> * IPTV
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
> the DTV display or monitor

That's how it works with cable and satellite set-top boxes (passing
through an open-captioned signal) and that should work as well in the
way Paul indicates above. Agreed.


> 2. We cannot agree with a requirement to require decoding of CEA-708
in
> devices that are not currently required to do so by FCC rules. As a
> compromise, however, I suggest that we add "or functional equivalent"
to
> the middle box as below. I also strongly object to calling out
specific
> product brand names. These requirements should apply to all digital
> video source devices, such as PCs, and should not be aimed at a select

> technology or product category. All digital video source devices
should
> have similar requirements to provide captions when used to play video
> content on a DTV display or monitor.

FCC rules do not govern 508 rules. If they did, then we shouldn't be
requiring 608 caption data playback on conventional DVDs (see first box)
and yet we do and have for years. So a 508 requirement for 708 support
in the new DVD formats isn't determined by FCC rules. The questions is,
do we want to do so?

As for "calling out specific products names," Paul means using "BluRay"
and
"HD-DVD" - but is this so different than saying "DVD" above? If we don't
say those names specifically, how will procurement agents know what we
are talking about. If we say vaguely "video source devices" only, does
that cover other equipment that other manufacturers will object to. How
about an iPod or an iPhone? They are video source devices and can
neither decode nor pass on 708 data? Should they?

> * Other digital video source devices
>
> CEA 708 or
> functional equivalent
>
> * Pass data, when available, to the caption decoding circuitry of DTV
> displays
>
> OR
>
> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
> the DTV display or monitor

Using "functional equivalent" language with defining what the functions
are, in detail, leaves a wide open hole for all kinds of experimental
ways of displaying text. Do we want that?

>
> 3. CEA-708 is a very extensive standard, and the FCC does not require

> DTV receivers to implement all of its features. I think the TETIAC
> guidelines should defer to the FCC rules which define the sections of
> CEA-708 that devices must support. Perhaps just a footnote is needed
to
> clarify this.

It is true that, for instance, the 708 standard has provisions for up to
63
caption channels per program (!) while the FCC rules require only 6. We
can and should point to the subsection of 708 that the FCC mandates for
support within DTV tuners and STBs. A footnote could refer to:

FCC Docket 00-259
Adopted: July 21, 2000
Released: July 31, 2000

In the Matter of

Closed Captioning Requirements for
Digital Television Receivers

Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming,
Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Video Programming Accessibility


> 6.3-E - Interactive Elements
This section was not written by our subcommittee so I can't comment on
the intent of the authors.

And with that, I'm off on vacation for a week - good luck!

- Larry


>
> All materials containing interactive elements that are part of the
> content must comply with 1194.21 [a-z] as well as 1194.24 a-e.
>
> Comments:
>
> 1. I think a definition of an "interactive element" is needed for
this
> section.
>
>
>
> 2. A concern with Sec 6.3-E that is more of a question: Is the
intent
> here to impose all of the web/software requirements currently being
> discussed onto consumer electronic video playback devices? My concern

> is that this could potentially prohibit a whole class of devices, such

> as DVD players, from government use. For example, DVDs authored with
> talking menus could be considered to contain "interactive elements",
but
> I am not sure if these would fully comply with the requirements of
> 1194.21 today? Since the web/software section is intended to
primarily
> address PCs, I am really apprehensive that these requirements may not
be
> able to be met by consumer-grade media players. I think this area
> requires more discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV
Subcommittee
> meeting today.
>
>
>
> But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
> Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable
to
> attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and
act
> on the following:
>
>
>
> 1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and
> provide comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved.
> Comments should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way
-
> they can be posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.
>
>
>
> Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:
>
>
>
> A) Subpart A Definitions
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definit
> ions
>
>
>
> Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe

> we have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire
need:
>
>
>
> " The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:
>
> Section 1194.4 Definitions:
>
> CAPTIONS:
>
> Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
> Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of
> spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken information such

> as important sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker
identification
> and location. Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
> information. In some countries captions are called subtitles.
>
>
>
> VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:
>
> The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details
that
> are not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio
> output alone.
>
> Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program
and
> are usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide

> information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
> without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who
> are blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know
> what is happening on the screen."
>
>
>
> B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or
> Players/Displays
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Pr
> ovisions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays
>
>
>
> C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia
> (Format)
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimed
> ia_28Format.29
>
>
>
> D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...
>
> - Synchronized Alternatives
>
> - Captions and Transcripts
>
> - Video Description and Full Text Equivalents
>
> - Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions
>
>
>
>
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Aud
> io_and.2For_Video_Content
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
> face-to-face.
>
>
>
> We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP

> (the committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).
>
>
>
> - Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2007 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

Larry chiming in from vacation...

I have to disagree with this thread from Paul, Allen and Sean, on behalf of
content providers:

If there isn't a set standard or common way of presenting closed captions in
video material, a content author will need to author in multiple methods -
which the insistence on no set or named standard can result in. Imagine a
government agency wanting to distribute a closed captioned video via the
following means:

- broadcast
- cable
- satellite
- DVD
- VHS (for legacy users - and there will be plenty for a long time)
- BluRay
- HD-DVD

If that producer uses a combination of 608 and 708 data formats, they can
caption and encode once - except for the last two which will require a
reformat which is a time and cost burden.

No one on the committee seems to be representing the concerns of content
providers, so I am making the case for that important sector. These are our
clients who are * EXTREMELY * confused about new digital formats (let alone
online, web-based video) and spend a tremendous amount of time getting it
all to line up. 508 should not encourage proliferation of numerous new
closed caption formats that may or may not be supported across product lines
and video source equipment.

As for globalization:
The international arguments have been made repeatedly, with the same
conclusion: harmonization with global standards is a desired goal, but not
one that should trump effective accommodations for U.S. agencies and their
disabled employees and constituents. If there was an international caption
data standard we could all agree on, we would be putting that one forward.
Without such, what would keep anyone from using NABTS teletext or other spec
used elsewhere but highly uncommon in the U.S. production community?

- Larry


Sean Hayes wrote:

> I agree too. Captioning and other media accessibility is facing a big
> challenge internationally, especially as IP delivery becomes more and more
> common. We need to work towards global harmonisation here, which is a hard
> problem. Insistence on a US specific technical standard is not going to help
> this.
>
> 508 needs to capture the functional requirement, which is universal access to
> media. In certain circumstances (e.g. Broadcast TV) it might be acceptable to
> reference other legislation, which in turn may make technical requirements,
> but in general 508 should avoid requiring any specific technical solutions.
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Corporate Accessibility Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
> mob +44 7977 455002
> office +44 117 9719730
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: 17 July 2007 15:26
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
>
> I want to say I concur with Paul completely.
>
> Paul, you say this more effectively than I but are representing exactly
> my thinking.
>
> What we want is captioning information available where ever the media is
> viewed, so we should reflect that in our standards. Saying captioning
> must be in specific protocols for everything seems almost impossible at
> this time, so we need to leave the first requirement in place,
> captioning everywhere, and then define where we do have specifics that
> don't place any great burden on content developers or broadcasters or
> media player folks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Schomburg,
> Paul
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
> DRAFT
>
> Folks: With regard to Larry's comments, please see the following
> responses [in brackets]:
>
> Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
> support 708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS -
> it says videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can
> support 708 data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can
> do just that).
>
> [Agreed. There are digital VHS recorders, such as those marketed by JVC,
> that support CEA-708. Such recorders, if they include a DTV tuner, would
> be required by the FCC to decode and display 708 captions.]
>
> As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
> more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
> caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
> the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
> rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
> or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
> bodies and manufacturers).
>
> So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
> format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
> video source
>
> devices.
>
> [BluRay and HD-DVD do have a way to support recording of CEA-708 data.
> If a recorder includes DTV tuning capability, the product would be
> required, per FCC rules, to decode and display 708 captions. Consumer
> devices designed to play back prepackaged media, such as motion
> pictures, do not include a DTV reception capability and thus not include
> 708 decoding capability. In this case, "subtitles for the deaf and hard
> of hearing" provide a functional equivalent means of providing captions.
>
>
> It is important that the output of TEITAC treat all media player devices
> similarly, and not place a burden on one particular type of device
> (unless required by law or regulation, such as DTV receivers). At the
> same time, equivalent functionality should be expected of all types of
> media playback devices. Players of prepackaged media (e.g. BluRay or
> HD-DVD) should have the same requirements as other media players, such
> as portable media players (iPods, etc.) or personal computers. In the
> future media content will be increasingly downloaded or streamed from
> the Internet, recorded and played on a variety of devices. TEITAC
> should not attempt to force such devices to use a timed text format
> (708) that was designed for broadcast applications. Of course, content
> providers or device manufacturers may choose to employ 708-formated
> captions, but in many cases they may choose alternative formats that
> provide equivalent functionality. TEITAC should not second guess what
> technology developers choose to employ, but only specify the
> functionality necessary in the end result that government employs.]
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:11 PM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Cc: Mike Paciello
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
> DRAFT
>
> Paul raises some important points here, which I will respond to
> interspersed below. I don't believe we will be able to settle these
> issues right here and now and can raise them again, as we did at the
> last face-to-face.
> Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meetings in DC next
> week, so will not be able to press my case on the issue Paul raises
> below. Tony Jasionowski, also from Panasonic, will be leading the AV
> subcommittee discussion and I am confident he and other members of the
> subcommittee will give a fair hearing to all sides of these last
> remaining issues:
>
>
> Schomburg, Paul wrote:
>
>> 4-A - Caption Playback
>> Comments:
>>
>> 1. In the second box, please note that the following devices may not
>> contain display capabilities, and thus must either pass the data to a
>> DTV display or decode the data and pass an open-captioned signal to
> the
>> DTV display or monitor:
>>
>> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
>> display screens
>> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>>
>> In addition, videotape (VCR) or DVD source devices cannot provide
>> CEA-708 data. Therefore these source devices should not be included
> in
>> this section.
>
> Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
> support
> 708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS - it says
> videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can support 708
> data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can do just
> that).
>
> As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
> more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
> caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
> the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
> rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
> or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
> bodies and manufacturers).
>
> So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
> format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
> video source devices.
>
>
>> I suggest the following changes:
>>
>> * Wide-screen (16:9) digital television (DTV) displays measuring at
>> least 7.8 inches vertically
>> * DTV sets with conventional (4:3) displays measuring at least 13
>> inches diagonally
>> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
>> display screens
>> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>>
>> CEA 708
>>
>> Receive, decode and display digital video signals
>>
>> * broadcast
>> * cable
>> * satellite
>> * IPTV
>>
>> OR
>>
>> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
>> the DTV display or monitor
>
> That's how it works with cable and satellite set-top boxes (passing
> through an open-captioned signal) and that should work as well in the
> way Paul indicates above. Agreed.
>
>
>> 2. We cannot agree with a requirement to require decoding of CEA-708
> in
>> devices that are not currently required to do so by FCC rules. As a
>> compromise, however, I suggest that we add "or functional equivalent"
> to
>> the middle box as below. I also strongly object to calling out
> specific
>> product brand names. These requirements should apply to all digital
>> video source devices, such as PCs, and should not be aimed at a select
>
>> technology or product category. All digital video source devices
> should
>> have similar requirements to provide captions when used to play video
>> content on a DTV display or monitor.
>
> FCC rules do not govern 508 rules. If they did, then we shouldn't be
> requiring 608 caption data playback on conventional DVDs (see first box)
> and yet we do and have for years. So a 508 requirement for 708 support
> in the new DVD formats isn't determined by FCC rules. The questions is,
> do we want to do so?
>
> As for "calling out specific products names," Paul means using "BluRay"
> and
> "HD-DVD" - but is this so different than saying "DVD" above? If we don't
> say those names specifically, how will procurement agents know what we
> are talking about. If we say vaguely "video source devices" only, does
> that cover other equipment that other manufacturers will object to. How
> about an iPod or an iPhone? They are video source devices and can
> neither decode nor pass on 708 data? Should they?
>
>> * Other digital video source devices
>>
>> CEA 708 or
>> functional equivalent
>>
>> * Pass data, when available, to the caption decoding circuitry of DTV
>> displays
>>
>> OR
>>
>> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
>> the DTV display or monitor
>
> Using "functional equivalent" language with defining what the functions
> are, in detail, leaves a wide open hole for all kinds of experimental
> ways of displaying text. Do we want that?
>
>>
>> 3. CEA-708 is a very extensive standard, and the FCC does not require
>
>> DTV receivers to implement all of its features. I think the TETIAC
>> guidelines should defer to the FCC rules which define the sections of
>> CEA-708 that devices must support. Perhaps just a footnote is needed
> to
>> clarify this.
>
> It is true that, for instance, the 708 standard has provisions for up to
> 63
> caption channels per program (!) while the FCC rules require only 6. We
> can and should point to the subsection of 708 that the FCC mandates for
> support within DTV tuners and STBs. A footnote could refer to:
>
> FCC Docket 00-259
> Adopted: July 21, 2000
> Released: July 31, 2000
>
> In the Matter of
>
> Closed Captioning Requirements for
> Digital Television Receivers
>
> Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming,
> Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
> Video Programming Accessibility
>
>
>> 6.3-E - Interactive Elements
> This section was not written by our subcommittee so I can't comment on
> the intent of the authors.
>
> And with that, I'm off on vacation for a week - good luck!
>
> - Larry
>
>
>>
>> All materials containing interactive elements that are part of the
>> content must comply with 1194.21 [a-z] as well as 1194.24 a-e.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> 1. I think a definition of an "interactive element" is needed for
> this
>> section.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. A concern with Sec 6.3-E that is more of a question: Is the
> intent
>> here to impose all of the web/software requirements currently being
>> discussed onto consumer electronic video playback devices? My concern
>
>> is that this could potentially prohibit a whole class of devices, such
>
>> as DVD players, from government use. For example, DVDs authored with
>> talking menus could be considered to contain "interactive elements",
> but
>> I am not sure if these would fully comply with the requirements of
>> 1194.21 today? Since the web/software section is intended to
> primarily
>> address PCs, I am really apprehensive that these requirements may not
> be
>> able to be met by consumer-grade media players. I think this area
>> requires more discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>
>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>> Goldberg
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:45 AM
>> To: TEITAC AV list
>> Subject: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
>> Importance: High
>>
>>
>>
>> In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV
> Subcommittee
>> meeting today.
>>
>>
>>
>> But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
>> Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable
> to
>> attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and
> act
>> on the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and
>> provide comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved.
>> Comments should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way
> -
>> they can be posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:
>>
>>
>>
>> A) Subpart A Definitions
>>
>>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definit
>> ions
>>
>>
>>
>> Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe
>
>> we have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire
> need:
>>
>>
>>
>> " The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:
>>
>> Section 1194.4 Definitions:
>>
>> CAPTIONS:
>>
>> Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
>> Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of
>> spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken information such
>
>> as important sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker
> identification
>> and location. Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
>> information. In some countries captions are called subtitles.
>>
>>
>>
>> VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:
>>
>> The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details
> that
>> are not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio
>> output alone.
>>
>> Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program
> and
>> are usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide
>
>> information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
>> without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who
>> are blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know
>> what is happening on the screen."
>>
>>
>>
>> B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or
>> Players/Displays
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Pr
>> ovisions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays
>>
>>
>>
>> C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia
>> (Format)
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimed
>> ia_28Format.29
>>
>>
>>
>> D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...
>>
>> - Synchronized Alternatives
>>
>> - Captions and Transcripts
>>
>> - Video Description and Full Text Equivalents
>>
>> - Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Aud
>> io_and.2For_Video_Content
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
>> face-to-face.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP
>
>> (the committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).
>>
>>
>>
>> - Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Wed, Jul 18 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

I agree that as a content provider, the situation is complex. Microsoft through MSN, Encarta and other products provides a great deal of video material; we do not currently have a satisfactory way to obtain caption data from the content author and deliver this over the internet. This is a big problem for us and others like us, and we would welcome a solution - EIA-708 however is not it.

Content authors should not directly author to 708 data; as preserving that through the editing process (e.g. as programming is altered for different markets) is highly problematic, as is delivering it anywhere other than US DTV systems.

Authoring directly to a video delivery format like 608/708 is not a good idea, it's far too inflexible. Authors need to be authoring using a higher level format, such as addressed by AAF and MXF; and convert to the play-out system at time of delivery, and indeed most authors currently use proprietary captioning tools and formats which can preserve the data in a form which can map to multiple delivery formats.

I believe the industry should work towards a global harmonisation, at least at the authoring level, and as you are aware Larry there are some efforts underway to make this happen. The Access board however is not the forum to have those discussions, and the output of the 508 process should not be prevented from using such formats if they ever arrive.

As I said, in the specific case of delivering broadcast television to consumers in the US, the decision has already been made by the FCC to require a specific profile of EIA-708-B; and thus it could be acceptable to have the Access board refer to this legislation and its successors. Although this would go against the general desire to make the 508 requirements technology neutral. Where I have a problem is attempting to push 708 into places where it doesn't fit.

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD ROM disks, cannot encode any form of 708 data, and even if they could they would be unable to deliver that over any interconnect other than the standard definition connection. These disks are however currently providing SDH, and could, if there were guidance or requirements that required it, encode captioning in a manner which allowed the same range of user adjustments as the FCC requires for DTV in the US (and actually a great deal more). By having the functional requirements in 508 we would be more effective in getting good HD captioning from those formats. The current wording of 508 allows authors of these disks to not provide any captioning at all.

The internet is even more problematic, in that there the requirement is for a fully internationalised captioning standard optimised for IP delivery, such as W3C timed text format. EIA-708-B would need to be significantly altered to adequately address this market, if this is indeed even possible.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Corporate Accessibility Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry Goldberg
Sent: 17 July 2007 23:37
To: TEITAC AV list
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT

Larry chiming in from vacation...

I have to disagree with this thread from Paul, Allen and Sean, on behalf of
content providers:

If there isn't a set standard or common way of presenting closed captions in
video material, a content author will need to author in multiple methods -
which the insistence on no set or named standard can result in. Imagine a
government agency wanting to distribute a closed captioned video via the
following means:

- broadcast
- cable
- satellite
- DVD
- VHS (for legacy users - and there will be plenty for a long time)
- BluRay
- HD-DVD

If that producer uses a combination of 608 and 708 data formats, they can
caption and encode once - except for the last two which will require a
reformat which is a time and cost burden.

No one on the committee seems to be representing the concerns of content
providers, so I am making the case for that important sector. These are our
clients who are * EXTREMELY * confused about new digital formats (let alone
online, web-based video) and spend a tremendous amount of time getting it
all to line up. 508 should not encourage proliferation of numerous new
closed caption formats that may or may not be supported across product lines
and video source equipment.

As for globalization:
The international arguments have been made repeatedly, with the same
conclusion: harmonization with global standards is a desired goal, but not
one that should trump effective accommodations for U.S. agencies and their
disabled employees and constituents. If there was an international caption
data standard we could all agree on, we would be putting that one forward.
Without such, what would keep anyone from using NABTS teletext or other spec
used elsewhere but highly uncommon in the U.S. production community?

- Larry


Sean Hayes wrote:

> I agree too. Captioning and other media accessibility is facing a big
> challenge internationally, especially as IP delivery becomes more and more
> common. We need to work towards global harmonisation here, which is a hard
> problem. Insistence on a US specific technical standard is not going to help
> this.
>
> 508 needs to capture the functional requirement, which is universal access to
> media. In certain circumstances (e.g. Broadcast TV) it might be acceptable to
> reference other legislation, which in turn may make technical requirements,
> but in general 508 should avoid requiring any specific technical solutions.
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Corporate Accessibility Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
> mob +44 7977 455002
> office +44 117 9719730
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: 17 July 2007 15:26
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
>
> I want to say I concur with Paul completely.
>
> Paul, you say this more effectively than I but are representing exactly
> my thinking.
>
> What we want is captioning information available where ever the media is
> viewed, so we should reflect that in our standards. Saying captioning
> must be in specific protocols for everything seems almost impossible at
> this time, so we need to leave the first requirement in place,
> captioning everywhere, and then define where we do have specifics that
> don't place any great burden on content developers or broadcasters or
> media player folks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Schomburg,
> Paul
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
> DRAFT
>
> Folks: With regard to Larry's comments, please see the following
> responses [in brackets]:
>
> Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
> support 708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS -
> it says videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can
> support 708 data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can
> do just that).
>
> [Agreed. There are digital VHS recorders, such as those marketed by JVC,
> that support CEA-708. Such recorders, if they include a DTV tuner, would
> be required by the FCC to decode and display 708 captions.]
>
> As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
> more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
> caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
> the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
> rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
> or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
> bodies and manufacturers).
>
> So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
> format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
> video source
>
> devices.
>
> [BluRay and HD-DVD do have a way to support recording of CEA-708 data.
> If a recorder includes DTV tuning capability, the product would be
> required, per FCC rules, to decode and display 708 captions. Consumer
> devices designed to play back prepackaged media, such as motion
> pictures, do not include a DTV reception capability and thus not include
> 708 decoding capability. In this case, "subtitles for the deaf and hard
> of hearing" provide a functional equivalent means of providing captions.
>
>
> It is important that the output of TEITAC treat all media player devices
> similarly, and not place a burden on one particular type of device
> (unless required by law or regulation, such as DTV receivers). At the
> same time, equivalent functionality should be expected of all types of
> media playback devices. Players of prepackaged media (e.g. BluRay or
> HD-DVD) should have the same requirements as other media players, such
> as portable media players (iPods, etc.) or personal computers. In the
> future media content will be increasingly downloaded or streamed from
> the Internet, recorded and played on a variety of devices. TEITAC
> should not attempt to force such devices to use a timed text format
> (708) that was designed for broadcast applications. Of course, content
> providers or device manufacturers may choose to employ 708-formated
> captions, but in many cases they may choose alternative formats that
> provide equivalent functionality. TEITAC should not second guess what
> technology developers choose to employ, but only specify the
> functionality necessary in the end result that government employs.]
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:11 PM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Cc: Mike Paciello
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6
> DRAFT
>
> Paul raises some important points here, which I will respond to
> interspersed below. I don't believe we will be able to settle these
> issues right here and now and can raise them again, as we did at the
> last face-to-face.
> Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meetings in DC next
> week, so will not be able to press my case on the issue Paul raises
> below. Tony Jasionowski, also from Panasonic, will be leading the AV
> subcommittee discussion and I am confident he and other members of the
> subcommittee will give a fair hearing to all sides of these last
> remaining issues:
>
>
> Schomburg, Paul wrote:
>
>> 4-A - Caption Playback
>> Comments:
>>
>> 1. In the second box, please note that the following devices may not
>> contain display capabilities, and thus must either pass the data to a
>> DTV display or decode the data and pass an open-captioned signal to
> the
>> DTV display or monitor:
>>
>> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
>> display screens
>> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>>
>> In addition, videotape (VCR) or DVD source devices cannot provide
>> CEA-708 data. Therefore these source devices should not be included
> in
>> this section.
>
> Videotape is indeed mentioned and certainly today's VHS tapes cannot
> support
> 708 data. But the section does not refer to either VCR or VHS - it says
> videotape and if a tape format becomes available that can support 708
> data playback, it should (professional grade tape indeed can do just
> that).
>
> As for DVD, this continues to be a bone of contention. It is appearing
> more and more like the original oversight of not having support of
> caption data in the first generation of DVD players has been repeated in
> the new generation (BluRay and HD-DVD). That situation may yet be
> rectified, as it was in the early days of DVD (without FCC requirements
> or pressure - this was a private industry fix made by the standards
> bodies and manufacturers).
>
> So while it is true that 708 cannot be supported in the existing DVD
> format, the future is unclear about BluRay, HD-DVD and other future
> video source devices.
>
>
>> I suggest the following changes:
>>
>> * Wide-screen (16:9) digital television (DTV) displays measuring at
>> least 7.8 inches vertically
>> * DTV sets with conventional (4:3) displays measuring at least 13
>> inches diagonally
>> * Stand-alone DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with
>> display screens
>> * Computer equipment that includes DTV receiver or display circuitry
>>
>> CEA 708
>>
>> Receive, decode and display digital video signals
>>
>> * broadcast
>> * cable
>> * satellite
>> * IPTV
>>
>> OR
>>
>> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
>> the DTV display or monitor
>
> That's how it works with cable and satellite set-top boxes (passing
> through an open-captioned signal) and that should work as well in the
> way Paul indicates above. Agreed.
>
>
>> 2. We cannot agree with a requirement to require decoding of CEA-708
> in
>> devices that are not currently required to do so by FCC rules. As a
>> compromise, however, I suggest that we add "or functional equivalent"
> to
>> the middle box as below. I also strongly object to calling out
> specific
>> product brand names. These requirements should apply to all digital
>> video source devices, such as PCs, and should not be aimed at a select
>
>> technology or product category. All digital video source devices
> should
>> have similar requirements to provide captions when used to play video
>> content on a DTV display or monitor.
>
> FCC rules do not govern 508 rules. If they did, then we shouldn't be
> requiring 608 caption data playback on conventional DVDs (see first box)
> and yet we do and have for years. So a 508 requirement for 708 support
> in the new DVD formats isn't determined by FCC rules. The questions is,
> do we want to do so?
>
> As for "calling out specific products names," Paul means using "BluRay"
> and
> "HD-DVD" - but is this so different than saying "DVD" above? If we don't
> say those names specifically, how will procurement agents know what we
> are talking about. If we say vaguely "video source devices" only, does
> that cover other equipment that other manufacturers will object to. How
> about an iPod or an iPhone? They are video source devices and can
> neither decode nor pass on 708 data? Should they?
>
>> * Other digital video source devices
>>
>> CEA 708 or
>> functional equivalent
>>
>> * Pass data, when available, to the caption decoding circuitry of DTV
>> displays
>>
>> OR
>>
>> * Decode data, when available, and pass an open-captioned signal to
>> the DTV display or monitor
>
> Using "functional equivalent" language with defining what the functions
> are, in detail, leaves a wide open hole for all kinds of experimental
> ways of displaying text. Do we want that?
>
>>
>> 3. CEA-708 is a very extensive standard, and the FCC does not require
>
>> DTV receivers to implement all of its features. I think the TETIAC
>> guidelines should defer to the FCC rules which define the sections of
>> CEA-708 that devices must support. Perhaps just a footnote is needed
> to
>> clarify this.
>
> It is true that, for instance, the 708 standard has provisions for up to
> 63
> caption channels per program (!) while the FCC rules require only 6. We
> can and should point to the subsection of 708 that the FCC mandates for
> support within DTV tuners and STBs. A footnote could refer to:
>
> FCC Docket 00-259
> Adopted: July 21, 2000
> Released: July 31, 2000
>
> In the Matter of
>
> Closed Captioning Requirements for
> Digital Television Receivers
>
> Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming,
> Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
> Video Programming Accessibility
>
>
>> 6.3-E - Interactive Elements
> This section was not written by our subcommittee so I can't comment on
> the intent of the authors.
>
> And with that, I'm off on vacation for a week - good luck!
>
> - Larry
>
>
>>
>> All materials containing interactive elements that are part of the
>> content must comply with 1194.21 [a-z] as well as 1194.24 a-e.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> 1. I think a definition of an "interactive element" is needed for
> this
>> section.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. A concern with Sec 6.3-E that is more of a question: Is the
> intent
>> here to impose all of the web/software requirements currently being
>> discussed onto consumer electronic video playback devices? My concern
>
>> is that this could potentially prohibit a whole class of devices, such
>
>> as DVD players, from government use. For example, DVDs authored with
>> talking menus could be considered to contain "interactive elements",
> but
>> I am not sure if these would fully comply with the requirements of
>> 1194.21 today? Since the web/software section is intended to
> primarily
>> address PCs, I am really apprehensive that these requirements may not
> be
>> able to be met by consumer-grade media players. I think this area
>> requires more discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>
>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>> Goldberg
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:45 AM
>> To: TEITAC AV list
>> Subject: [teitac-video] No meeting today - PLEASE REVIEW JULY 6 DRAFT
>> Importance: High
>>
>>
>>
>> In case you were wondering, we will not be conducting an AV
> Subcommittee
>> meeting today.
>>
>>
>>
>> But in anticipation of next week's face-to-face meeting in DC (Tony
>> Jasionowski of Panasonic will lead our presentation; I will be unable
> to
>> attend), I would like to ask the subcommittee members to look at and
> act
>> on the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Review the July 6th version of the TEITAC draft guidelines and
>> provide comments on which provisions are still open and/or unresolved.
>> Comments should be sent to this e-mail list as it seems an easier way
> -
>> they can be posted to the Wiki later if we need to make any changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are the 4 sections we need to look at:
>>
>>
>>
>> A) Subpart A Definitions
>>
>>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Subpart_A#Section_1194.4_Definit
>> ions
>>
>>
>>
>> Geoff Freed uploaded the following comment/definitions which I believe
>
>> we have all agreed to and should not reopen unless there is a dire
> need:
>>
>>
>>
>> " The AV working group has agreed to the following definitions:
>>
>> Section 1194.4 Definitions:
>>
>> CAPTIONS:
>>
>> Captions are synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
>> Captions are similar to subtitles in that they convey the content of
>> spoken dialogue, but also include text for non-spoken information such
>
>> as important sound effects, music, laughter, and speaker
> identification
>> and location. Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
>> information. In some countries captions are called subtitles.
>>
>>
>>
>> VIDEO DESCRIPTIONS:
>>
>> The insertion of audio intended to reveal important visual details
> that
>> are not contained or that cannot be understood from the main audio
>> output alone.
>>
>> Video descriptions supplement the regular audio track of the program
> and
>> are usually inserted into pauses in the dialog or narration to provide
>
>> information about actions, characters and on-screen text that appears
>> without verbalization. Video descriptions are a way to let people who
>> are blind, visually impaired or cannot otherwise see the screen know
>> what is happening on the screen."
>>
>>
>>
>> B) 2.4.4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Content or
>> Players/Displays
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#4._Additional_Pr
>> ovisions_for_Audio-Visual_Content_or_Players.2FDisplays
>>
>>
>>
>> C) 2.6 6. Electronic Content Provisions/2.6.2.2 6.2-B - Multimedia
>> (Format)
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#6.2-B_-_Multimed
>> ia_28Format.29
>>
>>
>>
>> D) 2.6.3 If Audio and/or Video Content...
>>
>> - Synchronized Alternatives
>>
>> - Captions and Transcripts
>>
>> - Video Description and Full Text Equivalents
>>
>> - Open or Closed Captions/Descriptions
>>
>>
>>
>>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_July_6_Provisions_Only#.5B6.3.5D_If_Aud
>> io_and.2For_Video_Content
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Any suggestions as to what Tony should present next week at the
>> face-to-face.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are coming down to the wire - so get your comments to the list ASAP
>
>> (the committee chairs are looking for final comments this week).
>>
>>
>>
>> - Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>