Thread Subject: Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

With you and Allen the list looks like

Larry G - Chair
Sean H
Andrew K
Gregg V
Allen H
Greg F

Anyone else?

(notice Larry that this is hereby transferred back to you - grin)


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Greg Fields
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:09 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
> FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.
>
> Please add myself to the list as we produce our own
> Java-based media player for BlackBerry.
>
> Greg Fields, CUA
> Accessibility Product Manager
> Handheld Product Management
> Research In Motion (RIM)
> Telephone: 1 519 888 7465, ext.3867
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> URL: http://www.blackberry.com/accessibility
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
> Allen
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:01 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> FundamentalOptionsfor caption issue.
>
> Add me to the list please.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:56 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
> Optionsfor caption issue.
>
> Perhaps we should start out with Who and then find a time.
>
>
> >From the call and this email I think there is
>
> Sean,
> Andrew
> Gregg
> Larry
> Others want to volunteer?
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> > Goldberg
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:48 AM
> > To: TEITAC AV list; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
> > Optionsfor caption issue.
> >
> > Yes, a sidebar conversation would be useful.
> >
> > Where/when?
> >
> > - Larry
> >
> >
> > Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> >
> > > Good point.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We need a side panel discussion to work out the details.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Sean Hayes
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:55 PM
> > > To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> > Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> Fundamental
> > > Optionsfor caption issue.
> > >
> > > But I'm not sure that would work for a container format (like
> > > Quicktime) which allows third party codecs to be included.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sean Hayes
> > > Incubation Lab
> > > Accessibility Business Unit
> > > Microsoft
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> > >
> > > Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> > > Vanderheiden
> > > Sent: 29 August 2007 20:50
> > > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Audio/Video
> > Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> Fundamental
> > > Optionsfor caption issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The company/organization that creates the technology
> specifies the
> > > preferred caption format ( or builds it into the technology).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of Sean
> > > Hayes
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:59 PM
> > > To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> > Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
> Fundamental
> > > Optionsfor caption issue.
> > >
> > > I think option 2 has the most going for it of the three,
> > however I'm
> > > wondering who defines "preferred" and how.
> > >
> > > Sean Hayes
> > > Incubation Lab
> > > Accessibility Business Unit
> > > Microsoft
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> > >
> > > Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> > > Vanderheiden
> > > Sent: 29 August 2007 19:47
> > > To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> > Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Three Fundamental Options for
> > caption issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You are right. This is ongoing in two lists.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How about the following to pull it all together. I
> think there are
> > > fundamentally just 3 options.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OPTION 1: - ONE "Preferred" Caption Format per media format
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) MEDIA FORMATS that support audio must specify one
> > PREFERRED format for
> > > captioning. (though many caption techniques may exist)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) CONTENT must use the PREFERRED format for captioning
> (though it
> > > may provide additional redundant versions of captions in
> > other formats
> > > as well.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) PLAYERS must support playing of captions that are in
> PREFERRED
> > > format for any media type they play (thought they may
> support other
> > > caption formats as well)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4) PLAYERS must allow captions to be turned on /off via a
> > mechanism
> > > that can be discovered from the player (without advanced
> > knowledge of
> > > activation
> > > sequence) OR the captions must always be rendered by the
> > player. This
> > > includes stand alone players or players embedded in content where
> > > media controls are not usually visible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OPTION 2: - MULTIPLE "Preferred" Caption Formats per
> media format
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Same as option 1 except.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have more than one PREFERRED
> > caption formats
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) CONTENT can choose between the PREFERRED formats and
> > implement the
> > > one they like.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL
> PREFFERED formats
> > > (for the media types they play).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4)(no change to #4)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OPTION 3: NO "Preferred" Caption Formats per media format
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Same as option 1 except
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have any number of formats. No caption
> > > format is required or preferred.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) CONTENT can use any format for captioning that they like.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL possible
> > formats for
> > > captioning for their media types.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4)(no change to #4)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CONCLUSION
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Option 1 is easiest for players
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Option 2 is easiest and most flexible for content providers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Option 3 does not seem practical.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > >
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > >
> > >> Hoffman, Allen
> > >
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:51 AM
> > >
> > >> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> > >
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec.
> > >
> > >> 4.AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> If it helps:
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> We have two groups talking a bit about similar topics now.
> > >
> > >> A/V and web/software, regarding both a/v content requirements
> > >
> > >> and a/v hardware/software user-agent requirements. We also
> > >
> > >> have to some extent authoring tool requirements discussion
> > >
> > >> for a/v, but in the authoring tool area this didn't come up
> > >
> > >> really with a/v specifically in mind.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> So, I think we have content-format requirements that could
> > >
> > >> include a/v requirements regarding how captions are stored,
> > >
> > >> and could include how video-description is also stored.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I think we have specific captioning content storage format
> > >
> > >> requirements which allow for broadcast transport, e.g. 608/708.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I think we have user-agent requirements that say things like,
> > >
> > >> provide ability to turn captions on/off if not open, ditto
> > >
> > >> for video-descriptions, and some other options. Some of this
> > >
> > >> may be scoped by type of playback platform, e.g. a DVD player
> > >
> > >> vs. a media-player running on a PC, vs. a media player taking
> > >
> > >> streaming from a web page.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> The part that's missing in web/software is user-agent part
> > >
> > >> and our user-agent requires might be defined in a/v and
> > >
> > >> scoped to fit in web/software?
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> The content storage requirements should be defined in a/v and
> > >
> > >> then migrated to content format.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> The authoring tool requirements if definable should be
> > >
> > >> defined here and inserted in authoring tool section.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I hate to say it this way but in the end most of this gets
> > >
> > >> split up here and there--but that's because a/v is so
> > >
> > >> integrated into everything now.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> So, how can we facilitate this assemblage and distribution?
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > >
> > >> Larry Goldberg
> > >
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:37 PM
> > >
> > >> To: TEITAC AV list
> > >
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> > >
> > >> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I agree that this is an authoring issue, but we do need to
> > >
> > >> know what to author to and the capabilities of the engines
> > >
> > >> we're authoring for.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> ... Larry ...
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> Sean Hayes wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> That's partly true. The caption data needs to be stored
> > in a master
> > >
> > >>> format somewhere that can be converted to any and all
> > >
> > >> play-out formats
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> by the copyright owner. That does not imply that it needs to be
> > >
> > >>> converted from playback format A to playback format B by all and
> > >
> > >>> sundry. While it is technically possible for example to go
> > >
> > >> from 708 to
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> SAMI or vice-versa, it is fairly hard, likely a lossy
> > >
> > >> conversion, and
> > >
> > >>> an N-squared problem to accommodate all the playback formats.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> The lock in and interoperability problem today is largely
> > >
> > >> due to the
> > >
> > >>> various proprietary subtitling equipment being used and
> > >
> > >> formats at the
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> authoring level; not with the delivery format. DFXP was
> > >
> > >> created to try
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> and build a lingua-franca at the authoring level, however
> > >
> > >> it is early
> > >
> > >>> days for that process.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Re-authoring for various delivery formats is the practical
> > >
> > >> reality for
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> a multiplicity of reasons, codec's; aspect ratio;
> resolution etc.
> > >
> > >>> Captioning should be an ingrained part of this process,
> just like
> > >
> > >>> audio is. If we want to put 508 constraints out there
> to help the
> > >
> > >>> state of captioning, the content format and authoring tools
> > >
> > >> provisions
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> may be the place to do it. The player rules are not.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Sean Hayes
> > >
> > >>> Incubation Lab
> > >
> > >>> Accessibility Business Unit
> > >
> > >>> Microsoft
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> > >
> > >>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >
> > >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> > >
> > >>> Goldberg
> > >
> > >>> Sent: 29 August 2007 14:18
> > >
> > >>> To: TEITAC AV list
> > >
> > >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> > >
> > >>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> The caption data need to be interoperable, not the
> playback media.
> > >
> > >>> That is, we can readily convert 608 to 708 to SMIL to
> SAMI to DFXP
> > >
> > >>> caption formats. A new format developed by HD-DVD and/or
> > >
> > >> BluRay to be
> > >
> > >>> functionally equivalent to 708 needs to be readily
> > >
> > >> transferable to and
> > >
> > >> from other accepted formats.
> > >
> > >>> If this is not the case, then a government agency would be
> > >
> > >> forced to
> > >
> > >>> re-author their captions for this special new format
> (anticipating
> > >
> > >>> that media will be distributed in multiple formats for
> > training and
> > >
> > >>> public information).
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> - Larry
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Sean Hayes wrote:
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>> What do you mean by interoperability here? And why is this
> > >
> > >> an issue?
> > >
> > >>>> the world is full of non interoperable systems, Flash,
> > HTML, Java,
> > >
> > >>>> SMIL, blah blah blah.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> If an agency picked VHS then they couldn't play it back on
> > >
> > >> computers
> > >
> > >>>> or DVD players. If they picked Flash to publish a
> > >
> > >> multimedia course
> > >
> > >>>> then they couldn't use a Java player to view it.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> If an agency wants to do electronic distribution, they
> > >
> > >> would need to
> > >
> > >>>> procure a complete system. If for example the agency
> chose to use
> > >
> > >>>> windows media for something, then they would need to
> > acquire tools
> > >
> > >>>> that can generate, caption, and stream it, and players
> > to view it.
> > >
> > >>>> There exists many tools for importing and exporting
> various media
> > >
> > >>>> formats if that is an issue.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> I don't see any new problem here which isn't true of all E&IT.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Sean Hayes
> > >
> > >>>> Incubation Lab
> > >
> > >>>> Accessibility Business Unit
> > >
> > >>>> Microsoft
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> > >
> > >>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >
> > >>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
> > >
> > >>>> Vanderheiden
> > >
> > >>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 04:19
> > >
> > >>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
> > >
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> > >
> > >>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Thanks
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Couple questions about the part where you changed it to
> > "Uses this
> > >
> > >>>> standard...
> > >
> > >>>> Captions or timed text (as defined by procuring agency)
> > or display
> > >
> > >>>> open caption video"
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> - How would you get interoperability if each agency
> picks its own
> > >
> > >> standards?
> > >
> > >>>> - Will purchasing agents have any idea what to specify?
> > >
> > >>>> - And how would a mfgr know how to design products if they
> > >
> > >> don't know
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>>> what standard will apply until the get the P.O.?
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Maybe I'm missing something
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Thanks
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Gregg
> > >
> > >>>> -- ------------------------------
> > >
> > >>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>>

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

Thanks.

I'll communicate with the interested parties directly.

... Larry ...


Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> With you and Allen the list looks like
>
> Larry G - Chair
> Sean H
> Andrew K
> Gregg V
> Allen H
> Greg F
>
> Anyone else?
>
> (notice Larry that this is hereby transferred back to you - grin)
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>> Of Greg Fields
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:09 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
>> FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.
>>
>> Please add myself to the list as we produce our own
>> Java-based media player for BlackBerry.
>>
>> Greg Fields, CUA
>> Accessibility Product Manager
>> Handheld Product Management
>> Research In Motion (RIM)
>> Telephone: 1 519 888 7465, ext.3867
>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> URL: http://www.blackberry.com/accessibility
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
>> Allen
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:01 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
>> FundamentalOptionsfor caption issue.
>>
>> Add me to the list please.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>> Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:56 AM
>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>> Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>
>> Perhaps we should start out with Who and then find a time.
>>
>>
>>> From the call and this email I think there is
>>
>> Sean,
>> Andrew
>> Gregg
>> Larry
>> Others want to volunteer?
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>>> Goldberg
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:48 AM
>>> To: TEITAC AV list; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>
>>> Yes, a sidebar conversation would be useful.
>>>
>>> Where/when?
>>>
>>> - Larry
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We need a side panel discussion to work out the details.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> Sean Hayes
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:55 PM
>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>>> Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
>> Fundamental
>>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm not sure that would work for a container format (like
>>>> Quicktime) which allows third party codecs to be included.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>> Incubation Lab
>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>>>> Microsoft
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 20:50
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Audio/Video
>>> Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
>> Fundamental
>>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The company/organization that creates the technology
>> specifies the
>>>> preferred caption format ( or builds it into the technology).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>>> Behalf Of Sean
>>>> Hayes
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:59 PM
>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>>> Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
>> Fundamental
>>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>>
>>>> I think option 2 has the most going for it of the three,
>>> however I'm
>>>> wondering who defines "preferred" and how.
>>>>
>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>> Incubation Lab
>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>>>> Microsoft
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 19:47
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>>> Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Three Fundamental Options for
>>> caption issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are right. This is ongoing in two lists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about the following to pull it all together. I
>> think there are
>>>> fundamentally just 3 options.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OPTION 1: - ONE "Preferred" Caption Format per media format
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS that support audio must specify one
>>> PREFERRED format for
>>>> captioning. (though many caption techniques may exist)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) CONTENT must use the PREFERRED format for captioning
>> (though it
>>>> may provide additional redundant versions of captions in
>>> other formats
>>>> as well.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3) PLAYERS must support playing of captions that are in
>> PREFERRED
>>>> format for any media type they play (thought they may
>> support other
>>>> caption formats as well)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4) PLAYERS must allow captions to be turned on /off via a
>>> mechanism
>>>> that can be discovered from the player (without advanced
>>> knowledge of
>>>> activation
>>>> sequence) OR the captions must always be rendered by the
>>> player. This
>>>> includes stand alone players or players embedded in content where
>>>> media controls are not usually visible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OPTION 2: - MULTIPLE "Preferred" Caption Formats per
>> media format
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Same as option 1 except.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have more than one PREFERRED
>>> caption formats
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) CONTENT can choose between the PREFERRED formats and
>>> implement the
>>>> one they like.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL
>> PREFFERED formats
>>>> (for the media types they play).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4)(no change to #4)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OPTION 3: NO "Preferred" Caption Formats per media format
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Same as option 1 except
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have any number of formats. No caption
>>>> format is required or preferred.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) CONTENT can use any format for captioning that they like.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL possible
>>> formats for
>>>> captioning for their media types.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4)(no change to #4)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CONCLUSION
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Option 1 is easiest for players
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Option 2 is easiest and most flexible for content providers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Option 3 does not seem practical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>>
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>>> Hoffman, Allen
>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:51 AM
>>>>
>>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec.
>>>>
>>>>> 4.AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If it helps:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We have two groups talking a bit about similar topics now.
>>>>
>>>>> A/V and web/software, regarding both a/v content requirements
>>>>
>>>>> and a/v hardware/software user-agent requirements. We also
>>>>
>>>>> have to some extent authoring tool requirements discussion
>>>>
>>>>> for a/v, but in the authoring tool area this didn't come up
>>>>
>>>>> really with a/v specifically in mind.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, I think we have content-format requirements that could
>>>>
>>>>> include a/v requirements regarding how captions are stored,
>>>>
>>>>> and could include how video-description is also stored.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think we have specific captioning content storage format
>>>>
>>>>> requirements which allow for broadcast transport, e.g. 608/708.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think we have user-agent requirements that say things like,
>>>>
>>>>> provide ability to turn captions on/off if not open, ditto
>>>>
>>>>> for video-descriptions, and some other options. Some of this
>>>>
>>>>> may be scoped by type of playback platform, e.g. a DVD player
>>>>
>>>>> vs. a media-player running on a PC, vs. a media player taking
>>>>
>>>>> streaming from a web page.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The part that's missing in web/software is user-agent part
>>>>
>>>>> and our user-agent requires might be defined in a/v and
>>>>
>>>>> scoped to fit in web/software?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The content storage requirements should be defined in a/v and
>>>>
>>>>> then migrated to content format.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The authoring tool requirements if definable should be
>>>>
>>>>> defined here and inserted in authoring tool section.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I hate to say it this way but in the end most of this gets
>>>>
>>>>> split up here and there--but that's because a/v is so
>>>>
>>>>> integrated into everything now.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, how can we facilitate this assemblage and distribution?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Goldberg
>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:37 PM
>>>>
>>>>> To: TEITAC AV list
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>>>>
>>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that this is an authoring issue, but we do need to
>>>>
>>>>> know what to author to and the capabilities of the engines
>>>>
>>>>> we're authoring for.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ... Larry ...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sean Hayes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> That's partly true. The caption data needs to be stored
>>> in a master
>>>>
>>>>>> format somewhere that can be converted to any and all
>>>>
>>>>> play-out formats
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> by the copyright owner. That does not imply that it needs to be
>>>>
>>>>>> converted from playback format A to playback format B by all and
>>>>
>>>>>> sundry. While it is technically possible for example to go
>>>>
>>>>> from 708 to
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> SAMI or vice-versa, it is fairly hard, likely a lossy
>>>>
>>>>> conversion, and
>>>>
>>>>>> an N-squared problem to accommodate all the playback formats.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The lock in and interoperability problem today is largely
>>>>
>>>>> due to the
>>>>
>>>>>> various proprietary subtitling equipment being used and
>>>>
>>>>> formats at the
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> authoring level; not with the delivery format. DFXP was
>>>>
>>>>> created to try
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and build a lingua-franca at the authoring level, however
>>>>
>>>>> it is early
>>>>
>>>>>> days for that process.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Re-authoring for various delivery formats is the practical
>>>>
>>>>> reality for
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> a multiplicity of reasons, codec's; aspect ratio;
>> resolution etc.
>>>>
>>>>>> Captioning should be an ingrained part of this process,
>> just like
>>>>
>>>>>> audio is. If we want to put 508 constraints out there
>> to help the
>>>>
>>>>>> state of captioning, the content format and authoring tools
>>>>
>>>>> provisions
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> may be the place to do it. The player rules are not.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>>
>>>>>> Incubation Lab
>>>>
>>>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>>>>
>>>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>
>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>>>>
>>>>>> Goldberg
>>>>
>>>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 14:18
>>>>
>>>>>> To: TEITAC AV list
>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>>>>
>>>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The caption data need to be interoperable, not the
>> playback media.
>>>>
>>>>>> That is, we can readily convert 608 to 708 to SMIL to
>> SAMI to DFXP
>>>>
>>>>>> caption formats. A new format developed by HD-DVD and/or
>>>>
>>>>> BluRay to be
>>>>
>>>>>> functionally equivalent to 708 needs to be readily
>>>>
>>>>> transferable to and
>>>>
>>>>> from other accepted formats.
>>>>
>>>>>> If this is not the case, then a government agency would be
>>>>
>>>>> forced to
>>>>
>>>>>> re-author their captions for this special new format
>> (anticipating
>>>>
>>>>>> that media will be distributed in multiple formats for
>>> training and
>>>>
>>>>>> public information).
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> - Larry
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Sean Hayes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean by interoperability here? And why is this
>>>>
>>>>> an issue?
>>>>
>>>>>>> the world is full of non interoperable systems, Flash,
>>> HTML, Java,
>>>>
>>>>>>> SMIL, blah blah blah.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> If an agency picked VHS then they couldn't play it back on
>>>>
>>>>> computers
>>>>
>>>>>>> or DVD players. If they picked Flash to publish a
>>>>
>>>>> multimedia course
>>>>
>>>>>>> then they couldn't use a Java player to view it.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> If an agency wants to do electronic distribution, they
>>>>
>>>>> would need to
>>>>
>>>>>>> procure a complete system. If for example the agency
>> chose to use
>>>>
>>>>>>> windows media for something, then they would need to
>>> acquire tools
>>>>
>>>>>>> that can generate, caption, and stream it, and players
>>> to view it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> There exists many tools for importing and exporting
>> various media
>>>>
>>>>>>> formats if that is an issue.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see any new problem here which isn't true of all E&IT.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>>
>>>>>>> Incubation Lab
>>>>
>>>>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>>>>
>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>>>>
>>>>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>
>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of Gregg
>>>>
>>>>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 04:19
>>>>
>>>>>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>>>>
>>>>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Couple questions about the part where you changed it to
>>> "Uses this
>>>>
>>>>>>> standard...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Captions or timed text (as defined by procuring agency)
>>> or display
>>>>
>>>>>>> open caption video"
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> - How would you get interoperability if each agency
>> picks its own
>>>>
>>>>> standards?
>>>>
>>>>>>> - Will purchasing agents have any idea what to specify?
>>>>
>>>>>>> - And how would a mfgr know how to design products if they
>>>>
>>>>> don't know
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> what standard will apply until the get the P.O.?
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe I'm missing something
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>
>>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>

From: James Elekes
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

Larry,

Don't know whether necessary but, it appears no consumers involved.
If needed, I'll represent that group.

-Jim

James J. Elekes, Chairperson
Telecommunications, Electronic/Information Technologies Committee
United States Access Board

(O) 888.564.8430



At 12:28 PM 8/30/2007, you wrote:
>Thanks.
>
>I'll communicate with the interested parties directly.
>
>... Larry ...
>
>
>Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
> > With you and Allen the list looks like
> >
> > Larry G - Chair
> > Sean H
> > Andrew K
> > Gregg V
> > Allen H
> > Greg F
> >
> > Anyone else?
> >
> > (notice Larry that this is hereby transferred back to you - grin)
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> >> Of Greg Fields
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:09 AM
> >> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
> >> FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.
> >>
> >> Please add myself to the list as we produce our own
> >> Java-based media player for BlackBerry.
> >>
> >> Greg Fields, CUA
> >> Accessibility Product Manager
> >> Handheld Product Management
> >> Research In Motion (RIM)
> >> Telephone: 1 519 888 7465, ext.3867
> >> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> URL: http://www.blackberry.com/accessibility
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
> >> Allen
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:01 AM
> >> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> >> FundamentalOptionsfor caption issue.
> >>
> >> Add me to the list please.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> >> Vanderheiden
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:56 AM
> >> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> >> Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
> >> Optionsfor caption issue.
> >>
> >> Perhaps we should start out with Who and then find a time.
> >>
> >>
> >>> From the call and this email I think there is
> >>
> >> Sean,
> >> Andrew
> >> Gregg
> >> Larry
> >> Others want to volunteer?
> >>
> >> Gregg
> >> -- ------------------------------
> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> >>> Goldberg
> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:48 AM
> >>> To: TEITAC AV list; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
> >>> Optionsfor caption issue.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, a sidebar conversation would be useful.
> >>>
> >>> Where/when?
> >>>
> >>> - Larry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Good point.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We need a side panel discussion to work out the details.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gregg
> >>>> -- ------------------------------
> >>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _____
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >>> Sean Hayes
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:55 PM
> >>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>> Subcommittee'
> >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> >> Fundamental
> >>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I'm not sure that would work for a container format (like
> >>>> Quicktime) which allows third party codecs to be included.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sean Hayes
> >>>> Incubation Lab
> >>>> Accessibility Business Unit
> >>>> Microsoft
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> >>>>
> >>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> >>>> Vanderheiden
> >>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 20:50
> >>>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Audio/Video
> >>> Subcommittee'
> >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> >> Fundamental
> >>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The company/organization that creates the technology
> >> specifies the
> >>>> preferred caption format ( or builds it into the technology).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gregg
> >>>> -- ------------------------------
> >>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _____
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> >>> Behalf Of Sean
> >>>> Hayes
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:59 PM
> >>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>> Subcommittee'
> >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
> >> Fundamental
> >>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think option 2 has the most going for it of the three,
> >>> however I'm
> >>>> wondering who defines "preferred" and how.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sean Hayes
> >>>> Incubation Lab
> >>>> Accessibility Business Unit
> >>>> Microsoft
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> >>>>
> >>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> >>>> Vanderheiden
> >>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 19:47
> >>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>> Subcommittee'
> >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Three Fundamental Options for
> >>> caption issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You are right. This is ongoing in two lists.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How about the following to pull it all together. I
> >> think there are
> >>>> fundamentally just 3 options.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> OPTION 1: - ONE "Preferred" Caption Format per media format
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS that support audio must specify one
> >>> PREFERRED format for
> >>>> captioning. (though many caption techniques may exist)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) CONTENT must use the PREFERRED format for captioning
> >> (though it
> >>>> may provide additional redundant versions of captions in
> >>> other formats
> >>>> as well.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) PLAYERS must support playing of captions that are in
> >> PREFERRED
> >>>> format for any media type they play (thought they may
> >> support other
> >>>> caption formats as well)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) PLAYERS must allow captions to be turned on /off via a
> >>> mechanism
> >>>> that can be discovered from the player (without advanced
> >>> knowledge of
> >>>> activation
> >>>> sequence) OR the captions must always be rendered by the
> >>> player. This
> >>>> includes stand alone players or players embedded in content where
> >>>> media controls are not usually visible.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> OPTION 2: - MULTIPLE "Preferred" Caption Formats per
> >> media format
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Same as option 1 except.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have more than one PREFERRED
> >>> caption formats
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) CONTENT can choose between the PREFERRED formats and
> >>> implement the
> >>>> one they like.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL
> >> PREFFERED formats
> >>>> (for the media types they play).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4)(no change to #4)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> OPTION 3: NO "Preferred" Caption Formats per media format
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Same as option 1 except
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have any number of formats. No caption
> >>>> format is required or preferred.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) CONTENT can use any format for captioning that they like.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL possible
> >>> formats for
> >>>> captioning for their media types.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4)(no change to #4)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> CONCLUSION
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Option 1 is easiest for players
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Option 2 is easiest and most flexible for content providers.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Option 3 does not seem practical.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gregg
> >>>>
> >>>> -- ------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>
> >>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hoffman, Allen
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:51 AM
> >>>>
> >>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> >>>>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 4.AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> If it helps:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> We have two groups talking a bit about similar topics now.
> >>>>
> >>>>> A/V and web/software, regarding both a/v content requirements
> >>>>
> >>>>> and a/v hardware/software user-agent requirements. We also
> >>>>
> >>>>> have to some extent authoring tool requirements discussion
> >>>>
> >>>>> for a/v, but in the authoring tool area this didn't come up
> >>>>
> >>>>> really with a/v specifically in mind.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> So, I think we have content-format requirements that could
> >>>>
> >>>>> include a/v requirements regarding how captions are stored,
> >>>>
> >>>>> and could include how video-description is also stored.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think we have specific captioning content storage format
> >>>>
> >>>>> requirements which allow for broadcast transport, e.g. 608/708.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think we have user-agent requirements that say things like,
> >>>>
> >>>>> provide ability to turn captions on/off if not open, ditto
> >>>>
> >>>>> for video-descriptions, and some other options. Some of this
> >>>>
> >>>>> may be scoped by type of playback platform, e.g. a DVD player
> >>>>
> >>>>> vs. a media-player running on a PC, vs. a media player taking
> >>>>
> >>>>> streaming from a web page.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The part that's missing in web/software is user-agent part
> >>>>
> >>>>> and our user-agent requires might be defined in a/v and
> >>>>
> >>>>> scoped to fit in web/software?
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The content storage requirements should be defined in a/v and
> >>>>
> >>>>> then migrated to content format.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The authoring tool requirements if definable should be
> >>>>
> >>>>> defined here and inserted in authoring tool section.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I hate to say it this way but in the end most of this gets
> >>>>
> >>>>> split up here and there--but that's because a/v is so
> >>>>
> >>>>> integrated into everything now.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> So, how can we facilitate this assemblage and distribution?
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>
> >>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >>>>
> >>>>> Larry Goldberg
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:37 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>> To: TEITAC AV list
> >>>>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> >>>>
> >>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I agree that this is an authoring issue, but we do need to
> >>>>
> >>>>> know what to author to and the capabilities of the engines
> >>>>
> >>>>> we're authoring for.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ... Larry ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sean Hayes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> That's partly true. The caption data needs to be stored
> >>> in a master
> >>>>
> >>>>>> format somewhere that can be converted to any and all
> >>>>
> >>>>> play-out formats
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> by the copyright owner. That does not imply that it needs to be
> >>>>
> >>>>>> converted from playback format A to playback format B by all and
> >>>>
> >>>>>> sundry. While it is technically possible for example to go
> >>>>
> >>>>> from 708 to
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> SAMI or vice-versa, it is fairly hard, likely a lossy
> >>>>
> >>>>> conversion, and
> >>>>
> >>>>>> an N-squared problem to accommodate all the playback formats.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The lock in and interoperability problem today is largely
> >>>>
> >>>>> due to the
> >>>>
> >>>>>> various proprietary subtitling equipment being used and
> >>>>
> >>>>> formats at the
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> authoring level; not with the delivery format. DFXP was
> >>>>
> >>>>> created to try
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> and build a lingua-franca at the authoring level, however
> >>>>
> >>>>> it is early
> >>>>
> >>>>>> days for that process.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Re-authoring for various delivery formats is the practical
> >>>>
> >>>>> reality for
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> a multiplicity of reasons, codec's; aspect ratio;
> >> resolution etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Captioning should be an ingrained part of this process,
> >> just like
> >>>>
> >>>>>> audio is. If we want to put 508 constraints out there
> >> to help the
> >>>>
> >>>>>> state of captioning, the content format and authoring tools
> >>>>
> >>>>> provisions
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> may be the place to do it. The player rules are not.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Sean Hayes
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Incubation Lab
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Microsoft
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>
> >>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>
> >>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Goldberg
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 14:18
> >>>>
> >>>>>> To: TEITAC AV list
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The caption data need to be interoperable, not the
> >> playback media.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> That is, we can readily convert 608 to 708 to SMIL to
> >> SAMI to DFXP
> >>>>
> >>>>>> caption formats. A new format developed by HD-DVD and/or
> >>>>
> >>>>> BluRay to be
> >>>>
> >>>>>> functionally equivalent to 708 needs to be readily
> >>>>
> >>>>> transferable to and
> >>>>
> >>>>> from other accepted formats.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> If this is not the case, then a government agency would be
> >>>>
> >>>>> forced to
> >>>>
> >>>>>> re-author their captions for this special new format
> >> (anticipating
> >>>>
> >>>>>> that media will be distributed in multiple formats for
> >>> training and
> >>>>
> >>>>>> public information).
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> - Larry
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Sean Hayes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> What do you mean by interoperability here? And why is this
> >>>>
> >>>>> an issue?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> the world is full of non interoperable systems, Flash,
> >>> HTML, Java,
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> SMIL, blah blah blah.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> If an agency picked VHS then they couldn't play it back on
> >>>>
> >>>>> computers
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> or DVD players. If they picked Flash to publish a
> >>>>
> >>>>> multimedia course
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> then they couldn't use a Java player to view it.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> If an agency wants to do electronic distribution, they
> >>>>
> >>>>> would need to
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> procure a complete system. If for example the agency
> >> chose to use
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> windows media for something, then they would need to
> >>> acquire tools
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> that can generate, caption, and stream it, and players
> >>> to view it.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> There exists many tools for importing and exporting
> >> various media
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> formats if that is an issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't see any new problem here which isn't true of all E&IT.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Sean Hayes
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Incubation Lab
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Microsoft
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> >> Behalf Of Gregg
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Vanderheiden
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 04:19
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Couple questions about the part where you changed it to
> >>> "Uses this
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> standard...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Captions or timed text (as defined by procuring agency)
> >>> or display
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> open caption video"
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> - How would you get interoperability if each agency
> >> picks its own
> >>>>
> >>>>> standards?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> - Will purchasing agents have any idea what to specify?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> - And how would a mfgr know how to design products if they
> >>>>
> >>>>> don't know
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> what standard will apply until the get the P.O.?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe I'm missing something
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Gregg
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

Thanks Jim - you are right - though I am confident that many of us are
dedicated to assuring consumer interests are the highest priority.

... Larry ...


James Elekes wrote:

> Larry,
>
> Don't know whether necessary but, it appears no consumers involved.
> If needed, I'll represent that group.
>
> -Jim
>
> James J. Elekes, Chairperson
> Telecommunications, Electronic/Information Technologies Committee
> United States Access Board
>
> (O) 888.564.8430
>
>
>
> At 12:28 PM 8/30/2007, you wrote:
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I'll communicate with the interested parties directly.
>>
>> ... Larry ...
>>
>>
>> Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>
>>> With you and Allen the list looks like
>>>
>>> Larry G - Chair
>>> Sean H
>>> Andrew K
>>> Gregg V
>>> Allen H
>>> Greg F
>>>
>>> Anyone else?
>>>
>>> (notice Larry that this is hereby transferred back to you - grin)
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>>>> Of Greg Fields
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:09 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
>>>> FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.
>>>>
>>>> Please add myself to the list as we produce our own
>>>> Java-based media player for BlackBerry.
>>>>
>>>> Greg Fields, CUA
>>>> Accessibility Product Manager
>>>> Handheld Product Management
>>>> Research In Motion (RIM)
>>>> Telephone: 1 519 888 7465, ext.3867
>>>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> URL: http://www.blackberry.com/accessibility
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
>>>> Allen
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:01 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
>>>> FundamentalOptionsfor caption issue.
>>>>
>>>> Add me to the list please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:56 AM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>>>> Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
>>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we should start out with Who and then find a time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From the call and this email I think there is
>>>>
>>>> Sean,
>>>> Andrew
>>>> Gregg
>>>> Larry
>>>> Others want to volunteer?
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>>>>> Goldberg
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:48 AM
>>>>> To: TEITAC AV list; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
>>>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, a sidebar conversation would be useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where/when?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Larry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need a side panel discussion to work out the details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:55 PM
>>>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>>>>> Subcommittee'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
>>>> Fundamental
>>>>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I'm not sure that would work for a container format (like
>>>>>> Quicktime) which allows third party codecs to be included.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>>>> Incubation Lab
>>>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 20:50
>>>>>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Audio/Video
>>>>> Subcommittee'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
>>>> Fundamental
>>>>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The company/organization that creates the technology
>>>> specifies the
>>>>>> preferred caption format ( or builds it into the technology).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Sean
>>>>>> Hayes
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:59 PM
>>>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>>>>> Subcommittee'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
>>>> Fundamental
>>>>>> Optionsfor caption issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think option 2 has the most going for it of the three,
>>>>> however I'm
>>>>>> wondering who defines "preferred" and how.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>>>> Incubation Lab
>>>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 19:47
>>>>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>>>>> Subcommittee'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Three Fundamental Options for
>>>>> caption issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right. This is ongoing in two lists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about the following to pull it all together. I
>>>> think there are
>>>>>> fundamentally just 3 options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OPTION 1: - ONE "Preferred" Caption Format per media format
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS that support audio must specify one
>>>>> PREFERRED format for
>>>>>> captioning. (though many caption techniques may exist)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) CONTENT must use the PREFERRED format for captioning
>>>> (though it
>>>>>> may provide additional redundant versions of captions in
>>>>> other formats
>>>>>> as well.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) PLAYERS must support playing of captions that are in
>>>> PREFERRED
>>>>>> format for any media type they play (thought they may
>>>> support other
>>>>>> caption formats as well)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) PLAYERS must allow captions to be turned on /off via a
>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>> that can be discovered from the player (without advanced
>>>>> knowledge of
>>>>>> activation
>>>>>> sequence) OR the captions must always be rendered by the
>>>>> player. This
>>>>>> includes stand alone players or players embedded in content where
>>>>>> media controls are not usually visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OPTION 2: - MULTIPLE "Preferred" Caption Formats per
>>>> media format
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same as option 1 except.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have more than one PREFERRED
>>>>> caption formats
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) CONTENT can choose between the PREFERRED formats and
>>>>> implement the
>>>>>> one they like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL
>>>> PREFFERED formats
>>>>>> (for the media types they play).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4)(no change to #4)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OPTION 3: NO "Preferred" Caption Formats per media format
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same as option 1 except
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have any number of formats. No caption
>>>>>> format is required or preferred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) CONTENT can use any format for captioning that they like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL possible
>>>>> formats for
>>>>>> captioning for their media types.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4)(no change to #4)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CONCLUSION
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 1 is easiest for players
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 2 is easiest and most flexible for content providers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 3 does not seem practical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hoffman, Allen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:51 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it helps:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have two groups talking a bit about similar topics now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A/V and web/software, regarding both a/v content requirements
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and a/v hardware/software user-agent requirements. We also
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have to some extent authoring tool requirements discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for a/v, but in the authoring tool area this didn't come up
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> really with a/v specifically in mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I think we have content-format requirements that could
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> include a/v requirements regarding how captions are stored,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and could include how video-description is also stored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we have specific captioning content storage format
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> requirements which allow for broadcast transport, e.g. 608/708.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we have user-agent requirements that say things like,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> provide ability to turn captions on/off if not open, ditto
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for video-descriptions, and some other options. Some of this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> may be scoped by type of playback platform, e.g. a DVD player
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vs. a media-player running on a PC, vs. a media player taking
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> streaming from a web page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The part that's missing in web/software is user-agent part
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and our user-agent requires might be defined in a/v and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> scoped to fit in web/software?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The content storage requirements should be defined in a/v and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then migrated to content format.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The authoring tool requirements if definable should be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> defined here and inserted in authoring tool section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate to say it this way but in the end most of this gets
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> split up here and there--but that's because a/v is so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> integrated into everything now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, how can we facilitate this assemblage and distribution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry Goldberg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:37 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To: TEITAC AV list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that this is an authoring issue, but we do need to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> know what to author to and the capabilities of the engines
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we're authoring for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... Larry ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sean Hayes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's partly true. The caption data needs to be stored
>>>>> in a master
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> format somewhere that can be converted to any and all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> play-out formats
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by the copyright owner. That does not imply that it needs to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> converted from playback format A to playback format B by all and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sundry. While it is technically possible for example to go
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from 708 to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SAMI or vice-versa, it is fairly hard, likely a lossy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conversion, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an N-squared problem to accommodate all the playback formats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The lock in and interoperability problem today is largely
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> due to the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> various proprietary subtitling equipment being used and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> formats at the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> authoring level; not with the delivery format. DFXP was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> created to try
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and build a lingua-franca at the authoring level, however
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is early
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> days for that process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Re-authoring for various delivery formats is the practical
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reality for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a multiplicity of reasons, codec's; aspect ratio;
>>>> resolution etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Captioning should be an ingrained part of this process,
>>>> just like
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> audio is. If we want to put 508 constraints out there
>>>> to help the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> state of captioning, the content format and authoring tools
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> provisions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> may be the place to do it. The player rules are not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incubation Lab
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goldberg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 14:18
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To: TEITAC AV list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The caption data need to be interoperable, not the
>>>> playback media.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is, we can readily convert 608 to 708 to SMIL to
>>>> SAMI to DFXP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> caption formats. A new format developed by HD-DVD and/or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BluRay to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> functionally equivalent to 708 needs to be readily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> transferable to and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from other accepted formats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this is not the case, then a government agency would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> forced to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> re-author their captions for this special new format
>>>> (anticipating
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that media will be distributed in multiple formats for
>>>>> training and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> public information).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sean Hayes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by interoperability here? And why is this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the world is full of non interoperable systems, Flash,
>>>>> HTML, Java,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SMIL, blah blah blah.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If an agency picked VHS then they couldn't play it back on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> computers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or DVD players. If they picked Flash to publish a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> multimedia course
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then they couldn't use a Java player to view it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If an agency wants to do electronic distribution, they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would need to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> procure a complete system. If for example the agency
>>>> chose to use
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> windows media for something, then they would need to
>>>>> acquire tools
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that can generate, caption, and stream it, and players
>>>>> to view it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There exists many tools for importing and exporting
>>>> various media
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> formats if that is an issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see any new problem here which isn't true of all E&IT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sean Hayes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incubation Lab
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Accessibility Business Unit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>>>> Behalf Of Gregg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 04:19
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Couple questions about the part where you changed it to
>>>>> "Uses this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> standard...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Captions or timed text (as defined by procuring agency)
>>>>> or display
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> open caption video"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - How would you get interoperability if each agency
>>>> picks its own
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> standards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Will purchasing agents have any idea what to specify?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - And how would a mfgr know how to design products if they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> don't know
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what standard will apply until the get the P.O.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm missing something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

From: Tom Brett
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Three FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

If these sidebars will be closed captioned I would like to join in.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:19 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.

With you and Allen the list looks like

Larry G - Chair
Sean H
Andrew K
Gregg V
Allen H
Greg F

Anyone else?

(notice Larry that this is hereby transferred back to you - grin)


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Greg Fields
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:09 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
> FundamentalOptionsforcaption issue.
>
> Please add myself to the list as we produce our own
> Java-based media player for BlackBerry.
>
> Greg Fields, CUA
> Accessibility Product Manager
> Handheld Product Management
> Research In Motion (RIM)
> Telephone: 1 519 888 7465, ext.3867
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> URL: http://www.blackberry.com/accessibility
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
> Allen
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:01 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> FundamentalOptionsfor caption issue.
>
> Add me to the list please.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:56 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
> Optionsfor caption issue.
>
> Perhaps we should start out with Who and then find a time.
>
>
> >From the call and this email I think there is
>
> Sean,
> Andrew
> Gregg
> Larry
> Others want to volunteer?
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> > Goldberg
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:48 AM
> > To: TEITAC AV list; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three Fundamental
> > Optionsfor caption issue.
> >
> > Yes, a sidebar conversation would be useful.
> >
> > Where/when?
> >
> > - Larry
> >
> >
> > Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> >
> > > Good point.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We need a side panel discussion to work out the details.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Sean Hayes
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:55 PM
> > > To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> > Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> Fundamental
> > > Optionsfor caption issue.
> > >
> > > But I'm not sure that would work for a container format (like
> > > Quicktime) which allows third party codecs to be included.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sean Hayes
> > > Incubation Lab
> > > Accessibility Business Unit
> > > Microsoft
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> > >
> > > Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> > > Vanderheiden
> > > Sent: 29 August 2007 20:50
> > > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Audio/Video
> > Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] [teitac-websoftware] Three
> Fundamental
> > > Optionsfor caption issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The company/organization that creates the technology
> specifies the
> > > preferred caption format ( or builds it into the technology).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of Sean
> > > Hayes
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:59 PM
> > > To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> > Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-video] Three
> Fundamental
> > > Optionsfor caption issue.
> > >
> > > I think option 2 has the most going for it of the three,
> > however I'm
> > > wondering who defines "preferred" and how.
> > >
> > > Sean Hayes
> > > Incubation Lab
> > > Accessibility Business Unit
> > > Microsoft
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> > >
> > > Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> > > Vanderheiden
> > > Sent: 29 August 2007 19:47
> > > To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> > Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Three Fundamental Options for
> > caption issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You are right. This is ongoing in two lists.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How about the following to pull it all together. I
> think there are
> > > fundamentally just 3 options.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OPTION 1: - ONE "Preferred" Caption Format per media format
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) MEDIA FORMATS that support audio must specify one
> > PREFERRED format for
> > > captioning. (though many caption techniques may exist)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) CONTENT must use the PREFERRED format for captioning
> (though it
> > > may provide additional redundant versions of captions in
> > other formats
> > > as well.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) PLAYERS must support playing of captions that are in
> PREFERRED
> > > format for any media type they play (thought they may
> support other
> > > caption formats as well)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4) PLAYERS must allow captions to be turned on /off via a
> > mechanism
> > > that can be discovered from the player (without advanced
> > knowledge of
> > > activation
> > > sequence) OR the captions must always be rendered by the
> > player. This
> > > includes stand alone players or players embedded in content where
> > > media controls are not usually visible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OPTION 2: - MULTIPLE "Preferred" Caption Formats per
> media format
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Same as option 1 except.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have more than one PREFERRED
> > caption formats
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) CONTENT can choose between the PREFERRED formats and
> > implement the
> > > one they like.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL
> PREFFERED formats
> > > (for the media types they play).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4)(no change to #4)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OPTION 3: NO "Preferred" Caption Formats per media format
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Same as option 1 except
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) MEDIA FORMATS - could have any number of formats. No caption
> > > format is required or preferred.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) CONTENT can use any format for captioning that they like.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) PLAYERS - EVERY player has to support ALL possible
> > formats for
> > > captioning for their media types.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4)(no change to #4)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CONCLUSION
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Option 1 is easiest for players
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Option 2 is easiest and most flexible for content providers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Option 3 does not seem practical.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > >
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > >
> > >> Hoffman, Allen
> > >
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:51 AM
> > >
> > >> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> > >
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec.
> > >
> > >> 4.AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> If it helps:
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> We have two groups talking a bit about similar topics now.
> > >
> > >> A/V and web/software, regarding both a/v content requirements
> > >
> > >> and a/v hardware/software user-agent requirements. We also
> > >
> > >> have to some extent authoring tool requirements discussion
> > >
> > >> for a/v, but in the authoring tool area this didn't come up
> > >
> > >> really with a/v specifically in mind.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> So, I think we have content-format requirements that could
> > >
> > >> include a/v requirements regarding how captions are stored,
> > >
> > >> and could include how video-description is also stored.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I think we have specific captioning content storage format
> > >
> > >> requirements which allow for broadcast transport, e.g. 608/708.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I think we have user-agent requirements that say things like,
> > >
> > >> provide ability to turn captions on/off if not open, ditto
> > >
> > >> for video-descriptions, and some other options. Some of this
> > >
> > >> may be scoped by type of playback platform, e.g. a DVD player
> > >
> > >> vs. a media-player running on a PC, vs. a media player taking
> > >
> > >> streaming from a web page.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> The part that's missing in web/software is user-agent part
> > >
> > >> and our user-agent requires might be defined in a/v and
> > >
> > >> scoped to fit in web/software?
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> The content storage requirements should be defined in a/v and
> > >
> > >> then migrated to content format.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> The authoring tool requirements if definable should be
> > >
> > >> defined here and inserted in authoring tool section.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I hate to say it this way but in the end most of this gets
> > >
> > >> split up here and there--but that's because a/v is so
> > >
> > >> integrated into everything now.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> So, how can we facilitate this assemblage and distribution?
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > >
> > >> Larry Goldberg
> > >
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:37 PM
> > >
> > >> To: TEITAC AV list
> > >
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> > >
> > >> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> I agree that this is an authoring issue, but we do need to
> > >
> > >> know what to author to and the capabilities of the engines
> > >
> > >> we're authoring for.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> ... Larry ...
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> Sean Hayes wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> That's partly true. The caption data needs to be stored
> > in a master
> > >
> > >>> format somewhere that can be converted to any and all
> > >
> > >> play-out formats
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> by the copyright owner. That does not imply that it needs to be
> > >
> > >>> converted from playback format A to playback format B by all and
> > >
> > >>> sundry. While it is technically possible for example to go
> > >
> > >> from 708 to
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> SAMI or vice-versa, it is fairly hard, likely a lossy
> > >
> > >> conversion, and
> > >
> > >>> an N-squared problem to accommodate all the playback formats.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> The lock in and interoperability problem today is largely
> > >
> > >> due to the
> > >
> > >>> various proprietary subtitling equipment being used and
> > >
> > >> formats at the
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> authoring level; not with the delivery format. DFXP was
> > >
> > >> created to try
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> and build a lingua-franca at the authoring level, however
> > >
> > >> it is early
> > >
> > >>> days for that process.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Re-authoring for various delivery formats is the practical
> > >
> > >> reality for
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> a multiplicity of reasons, codec's; aspect ratio;
> resolution etc.
> > >
> > >>> Captioning should be an ingrained part of this process,
> just like
> > >
> > >>> audio is. If we want to put 508 constraints out there
> to help the
> > >
> > >>> state of captioning, the content format and authoring tools
> > >
> > >> provisions
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>> may be the place to do it. The player rules are not.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Sean Hayes
> > >
> > >>> Incubation Lab
> > >
> > >>> Accessibility Business Unit
> > >
> > >>> Microsoft
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> > >
> > >>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >
> > >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> > >
> > >>> Goldberg
> > >
> > >>> Sent: 29 August 2007 14:18
> > >
> > >>> To: TEITAC AV list
> > >
> > >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> > >
> > >>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> The caption data need to be interoperable, not the
> playback media.
> > >
> > >>> That is, we can readily convert 608 to 708 to SMIL to
> SAMI to DFXP
> > >
> > >>> caption formats. A new format developed by HD-DVD and/or
> > >
> > >> BluRay to be
> > >
> > >>> functionally equivalent to 708 needs to be readily
> > >
> > >> transferable to and
> > >
> > >> from other accepted formats.
> > >
> > >>> If this is not the case, then a government agency would be
> > >
> > >> forced to
> > >
> > >>> re-author their captions for this special new format
> (anticipating
> > >
> > >>> that media will be distributed in multiple formats for
> > training and
> > >
> > >>> public information).
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> - Larry
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>> Sean Hayes wrote:
> > >
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>> What do you mean by interoperability here? And why is this
> > >
> > >> an issue?
> > >
> > >>>> the world is full of non interoperable systems, Flash,
> > HTML, Java,
> > >
> > >>>> SMIL, blah blah blah.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> If an agency picked VHS then they couldn't play it back on
> > >
> > >> computers
> > >
> > >>>> or DVD players. If they picked Flash to publish a
> > >
> > >> multimedia course
> > >
> > >>>> then they couldn't use a Java player to view it.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> If an agency wants to do electronic distribution, they
> > >
> > >> would need to
> > >
> > >>>> procure a complete system. If for example the agency
> chose to use
> > >
> > >>>> windows media for something, then they would need to
> > acquire tools
> > >
> > >>>> that can generate, caption, and stream it, and players
> > to view it.
> > >
> > >>>> There exists many tools for importing and exporting
> various media
> > >
> > >>>> formats if that is an issue.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> I don't see any new problem here which isn't true of all E&IT.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Sean Hayes
> > >
> > >>>> Incubation Lab
> > >
> > >>>> Accessibility Business Unit
> > >
> > >>>> Microsoft
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> > >
> > >>>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >
> > >>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
> > >
> > >>>> Vanderheiden
> > >
> > >>>> Sent: 29 August 2007 04:19
> > >
> > >>>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
> > >
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Revised proposal for Sec. 4.
> > >
> > >>>> AdditionalProvisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Thanks
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Couple questions about the part where you changed it to
> > "Uses this
> > >
> > >>>> standard...
> > >
> > >>>> Captions or timed text (as defined by procuring agency)
> > or display
> > >
> > >>>> open caption video"
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> - How would you get interoperability if each agency
> picks its own
> > >
> > >> standards?
> > >
> > >>>> - Will purchasing agents have any idea what to specify?
> > >
> > >>>> - And how would a mfgr know how to design products if they
> > >
> > >> don't know
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>>> what standard will apply until the get the P.O.?
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Maybe I'm missing something
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Thanks
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>> Gregg
> > >
> > >>>> -- ------------------------------
> > >
> > >>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >>>>