Thread Subject: Proposed Video Support text.

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Brooner Mary-AMB004
Date: Wed, Oct 17 2007 4:40 PM
Subject: Proposed Video Support text.

This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1 pm ET.




This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I have
made, per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes, and a
change to the first provision to make clear that this section is not
designed to require video communications for every single federal
employee.



Video Support



1. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access
via point to point real time video communications and video relay
services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such
access.
2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit
video communications in real time between and among individuals must
support interoperability to permit communication between and among users
of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit
video communications in real time between and among individuals must
provide an external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of
incoming calls.
4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in
order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real
time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign
language or is talking in the picture.
5. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in
effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual's
video communications from intermingling with packets of the general
government network, for example, through the installation of a separate
line to an isolated communications terminal.



Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in
real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in
the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive
voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to
facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications
provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning
sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate
video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.

http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en>

From: Gunnar Hellström
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed Video Support text.

This looks good,
I have a few comments:

In 3, about alerting, the user need to be allowed to select the type of
alerting that suits them, among flashes, vibration or strong sound. E.g.
deaf-blind users have little use of a flash, but very good use of video
communication (if it is combined with text.)

Proposed change of words from "must provide an external flashing system that
is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."
to: "must provide an external alerting system that is capable of alerting
users of incoming calls by flashes, vibrations or sound as selected by the
user".

In 3: There are many alerting systems on the market. Therefore, for the
videophone manufacturer it is generally more important to provide an
interface to an external alerting system than to provide the alerting
system, while for the procuring organisation it is important to provide the
whole solution to the user.
I leave to the discussion to decide if the sentence shall start with "must
provide an interface to"... or be as it is now.

In 4, I feel a sting in my heart when I see that we say that 15 fps is
sufficient for lip reading. This is a severe adaptation to reality, to
enable existing mobile equipment to be procured. It will be possible to use
them for some cumbersome signing, but not for lip-reading. The sentence
starts with "minimal", and that is good, but can we further encourage higher
frame rates to avoid jerky, unreadable video?

I suggest adding one more point about other media.
For remote sign language interpreting it is essential to have audio together
with video.
For some lip-reading users, it is essential to have audio combined with
video.
For deaf-blind users and for video relay calls, it is essential to have
real-time text or a form of text communication that the relay service
supports together with the video. It is heavily used in video relays for
things that are cumbersome to fingerspell, like phone numbers, addresses
etc.

If this is not interlinked to the sections about real-time text in some
other obvious way, I suggest to add:

x. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
inclusion of compatible audio and real-time text in the calls.


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



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner
Mary-AMB004
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1 pm ET.



This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I have made,
per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes, and a change to the
first provision to make clear that this section is not designed to require
video communications for every single federal employee.



Video Support



1. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via
point to point real time video communications and video relay services for
incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.

2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
interoperability to permit communication between and among users of
terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.

3. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must provide an
external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming
calls.

4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in
order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time
video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or
is talking in the picture.

5. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect,
but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual?s video
communications from intermingling with packets of the general government
network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an
isolated communications terminal.



Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real
time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same
way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2)
Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading
and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section.
(3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading
real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found
in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.

<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en>
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en









__________ NOD32 2596 (20071017) Information __________

Detta meddelande dr genomsvkt av NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.nod32.com

From: Norman Williams
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed Video Support text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norman


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

> This looks good,
> I have a few comments:
>
> In 3, about alerting, the user need to be allowed to select the
> type of alerting that suits them, among flashes, vibration or
> strong sound. E.g. deaf-blind users have little use of a flash, but
> very good use of video communication (if it is combined with text.)
>
> Proposed change of words from "must provide an external flashing
> system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."
> to: "must provide an external alerting system that is capable of
> alerting users of incoming calls by flashes, vibrations or sound as
> selected by the user".
>
> In 3: There are many alerting systems on the market. Therefore, for
> the videophone manufacturer it is generally more important to
> provide an interface to an external alerting system than to provide
> the alerting system, while for the procuring organisation it is
> important to provide the whole solution to the user.
> I leave to the discussion to decide if the sentence shall start
> with "must provide an interface to"... or be as it is now.
>
> In 4, I feel a sting in my heart when I see that we say that 15 fps
> is sufficient for lip reading. This is a severe adaptation to
> reality, to enable existing mobile equipment to be procured. It
> will be possible to use them for some cumbersome signing, but not
> for lip-reading. The sentence starts with "minimal", and that is
> good, but can we further encourage higher frame rates to avoid
> jerky, unreadable video?
>
> I suggest adding one more point about other media.
> For remote sign language interpreting it is essential to have audio
> together with video.
> For some lip-reading users, it is essential to have audio combined
> with video.
> For deaf-blind users and for video relay calls, it is essential to
> have real-time text or a form of text communication that the relay
> service supports together with the video. It is heavily used in
> video relays for things that are cumbersome to fingerspell, like
> phone numbers, addresses etc.
>
> If this is not interlinked to the sections about real-time text in
> some other obvious way, I suggest to add:
>
> x. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit
> video communications in real time between and among individuals
> must support inclusion of compatible audio and real-time text in
> the calls.
>
>
> Gunnar
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gunnar Hellström
> Omnitor
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Tel: +46708204288
> www.omnitor.se
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-telecom-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner Mary-AMB004
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
> Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.
>
> This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1
> pm ET.
>
> This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I
> have made, per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes,
> and a change to the first provision to make clear that this section
> is not designed to require video communications for every single
> federal employee.
>
> Video Support
>
> Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access
> via point to point real time video communications and video relay
> services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need
> such access.
> Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
> communications in real time between and among individuals must
> support interoperability to permit communication between and among
> users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
> Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
> communications in real time between and among individuals must
> provide an external flashing system that is capable of alerting
> users of incoming calls.
> At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
> second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400
> milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency
> that will support real time video communication in which one or
> more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
> Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in
> effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an
> individual’s video communications from intermingling with packets
> of the general government network, for example, through the
> installation of a separate line to an isolated communications
> terminal.
>
> Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video
> communications in real time includes the ability to send and
> receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users
> are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per
> second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and
> fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this
> section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and
> lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video
> communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.
> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2596 (20071017) Information __________
>
> Detta meddelande dr genomsvkt av NOD32 Antivirus.
> http://www.nod32.com
>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed Video Support text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video Support
1.. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via point to point real time video communications and video relay services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.
2.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. In complying with this subpart, each agency shall ensure it makes available an external flashing system that is compatible with the communication products or systems it uses to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals and that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls.
4.. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
5.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual’s video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an isolated communications terminal.
Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en. (4) External alerting can be achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend on the needs of the individual using the product.

Karen



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Norman




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


This looks good,
I have a few comments:

In 3, about alerting, the user need to be allowed to select the type of alerting that suits them, among flashes, vibration or strong sound. E.g. deaf-blind users have little use of a flash, but very good use of video communication (if it is combined with text.)

Proposed change of words from "must provide an external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."
to: "must provide an external alerting system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls by flashes, vibrations or sound as selected by the user".

In 3: There are many alerting systems on the market. Therefore, for the videophone manufacturer it is generally more important to provide an interface to an external alerting system than to provide the alerting system, while for the procuring organisation it is important to provide the whole solution to the user.
I leave to the discussion to decide if the sentence shall start with "must provide an interface to"... or be as it is now.

In 4, I feel a sting in my heart when I see that we say that 15 fps is sufficient for lip reading. This is a severe adaptation to reality, to enable existing mobile equipment to be procured. It will be possible to use them for some cumbersome signing, but not for lip-reading. The sentence starts with "minimal", and that is good, but can we further encourage higher frame rates to avoid jerky, unreadable video?

I suggest adding one more point about other media.
For remote sign language interpreting it is essential to have audio together with video.
For some lip-reading users, it is essential to have audio combined with video.
For deaf-blind users and for video relay calls, it is essential to have real-time text or a form of text communication that the relay service supports together with the video. It is heavily used in video relays for things that are cumbersome to fingerspell, like phone numbers, addresses etc.

If this is not interlinked to the sections about real-time text in some other obvious way, I suggest to add:

x. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support inclusion of compatible audio and real-time text in the calls.


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




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner Mary-AMB004
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1 pm ET.


This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I have made, per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes, and a change to the first provision to make clear that this section is not designed to require video communications for every single federal employee.


Video Support

1.. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via point to point real time video communications and video relay services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.
2.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must provide an external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls.
4.. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
5.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual’s video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an isolated communications terminal.

Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en





__________ NOD32 2596 (20071017) Information __________

Detta meddelande dr genomsvkt av NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.nod32.com

From: Gunnar Hellström
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed Video Support text.

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

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

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

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

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



_____

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video Support

1. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via
point to point real time video communications and video relay services for
incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.

2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
interoperability to permit communication between and among users of
terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.

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

4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in
order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time
video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or
is talking in the picture.

5. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect,
but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual?s video
communications from intermingling with packets of the general government
network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an
isolated communications terminal.

Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real
time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same
way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2)
Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading
and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section.
(3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading
real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found
in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1. <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en>
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en. (4) External alerting can be
achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend
on the needs of the individual using the product.

Karen



----- Original Message -----

From: Norman Williams <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: TEITAC Telecommunications <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subcommittee
Cc: 'TEITAC Committee' <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norman


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


This looks good,
I have a few comments:

In 3, about alerting, the user need to be allowed to select the type of
alerting that suits them, among flashes, vibration or strong sound. E.g.
deaf-blind users have little use of a flash, but very good use of video
communication (if it is combined with text.)

Proposed change of words from "must provide an external flashing system that
is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."
to: "must provide an external alerting system that is capable of alerting
users of incoming calls by flashes, vibrations or sound as selected by the
user".

In 3: There are many alerting systems on the market. Therefore, for the
videophone manufacturer it is generally more important to provide an
interface to an external alerting system than to provide the alerting
system, while for the procuring organisation it is important to provide the
whole solution to the user.
I leave to the discussion to decide if the sentence shall start with "must
provide an interface to"... or be as it is now.

In 4, I feel a sting in my heart when I see that we say that 15 fps is
sufficient for lip reading. This is a severe adaptation to reality, to
enable existing mobile equipment to be procured. It will be possible to use
them for some cumbersome signing, but not for lip-reading. The sentence
starts with "minimal", and that is good, but can we further encourage higher
frame rates to avoid jerky, unreadable video?

I suggest adding one more point about other media.
For remote sign language interpreting it is essential to have audio together
with video.
For some lip-reading users, it is essential to have audio combined with
video.
For deaf-blind users and for video relay calls, it is essential to have
real-time text or a form of text communication that the relay service
supports together with the video. It is heavily used in video relays for
things that are cumbersome to fingerspell, like phone numbers, addresses
etc.

If this is not interlinked to the sections about real-time text in some
other obvious way, I suggest to add:

x. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
inclusion of compatible audio and real-time text in the calls.


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



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner
Mary-AMB004
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.




This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1 pm ET.



This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I have made,
per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes, and a change to the
first provision to make clear that this section is not designed to require
video communications for every single federal employee.



Video Support


1. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via
point to point real time video communications and video relay services for
incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.

2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
interoperability to permit communication between and among users of
terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.

3. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must provide an
external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming
calls.

4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in
order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time
video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or
is talking in the picture.

5. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect,
but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual?s video
communications from intermingling with packets of the general government
network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an
isolated communications terminal.


Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real
time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same
way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2)
Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading
and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section.
(3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading
real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found
in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en>
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en





__________ NOD32 2596 (20071017) Information __________

Detta meddelande dr genomsvkt av NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.nod32.com

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Video Support text.

Video Support
1.. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via point to point real time video communications and video relay services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.
2.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. In complying with this subpart, each agency shall make available an external alerting system that is compatible with the communication products or systems it uses to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals and that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls.
4.. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
5.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual's video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an isolated communications terminal.
Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en. (4) External alerting can be achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend on the needs of the individual using the product.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunnar Hellström
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video Support
1.. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via point to point real time video communications and video relay services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.
2.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. In complying with this subpart, each agency shall ensure it makes available an external flashing system that is compatible with the communication products or systems it uses to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals and that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls.
4.. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
5.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual's video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an isolated communications terminal.
Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en. (4) External alerting can be achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend on the needs of the individual using the product.

Karen



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Norman




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


This looks good,
I have a few comments:

In 3, about alerting, the user need to be allowed to select the type of alerting that suits them, among flashes, vibration or strong sound. E.g. deaf-blind users have little use of a flash, but very good use of video communication (if it is combined with text.)

Proposed change of words from "must provide an external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."
to: "must provide an external alerting system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls by flashes, vibrations or sound as selected by the user".

In 3: There are many alerting systems on the market. Therefore, for the videophone manufacturer it is generally more important to provide an interface to an external alerting system than to provide the alerting system, while for the procuring organisation it is important to provide the whole solution to the user.
I leave to the discussion to decide if the sentence shall start with "must provide an interface to"... or be as it is now.

In 4, I feel a sting in my heart when I see that we say that 15 fps is sufficient for lip reading. This is a severe adaptation to reality, to enable existing mobile equipment to be procured. It will be possible to use them for some cumbersome signing, but not for lip-reading. The sentence starts with "minimal", and that is good, but can we further encourage higher frame rates to avoid jerky, unreadable video?

I suggest adding one more point about other media.
For remote sign language interpreting it is essential to have audio together with video.
For some lip-reading users, it is essential to have audio combined with video.
For deaf-blind users and for video relay calls, it is essential to have real-time text or a form of text communication that the relay service supports together with the video. It is heavily used in video relays for things that are cumbersome to fingerspell, like phone numbers, addresses etc.

If this is not interlinked to the sections about real-time text in some other obvious way, I suggest to add:

x. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support inclusion of compatible audio and real-time text in the calls.


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




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner Mary-AMB004
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1 pm ET.


This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I have made, per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes, and a change to the first provision to make clear that this section is not designed to require video communications for every single federal employee.


Video Support
1.. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via point to point real time video communications and video relay services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.
2.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must provide an external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls.
4.. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
5.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual's video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an isolated communications terminal.
Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en



__________ NOD32 2596 (20071017) Information __________

Detta meddelande dr genomsvkt av NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.nod32.com

From: Gunnar Hellström
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Video Support text.

Sorry for jumping back and forth on the alerting requirement.

I think the version discussed last in the call came out good.

So, just for clarification, I want to explain the reality that we want the
requirements to match:

We want the alerting requirement to suit people with at least the following
disabilities:
a. Deaf,
b. Hard-of-hearing
c. Deaf-blindness

And it shall be possible to use it with the following terminals:
1. Handheld
2. Dedicated hardware
3. PC-based

At least the following types of alerting can be suitable:
A. Flashing strong enough so that it is perceived in daylight in the room
even if you do not look towards the terminal.
B. Vibration of a small carry-on device. Either the handheld terminal
itself, if it is light enough to be carried always, or a wireless vibrator.
C. Strong sound.

It is usually good to combine a couple of alerting methods.

Alerting can be provided in the following ways:

1. Internally in handheld devices. It is usually good to combine that with
external alerting, because in the home or office you do not want to carry
the terminal on you all the time.

2. Internally in stationary devices, by building in flashes and strong
sound. This may be good but is very seldomly sufficient. The user may
already have a suitable alerting system with wireless alerting to a vibrator
with good coverage in the whole office, and is not helped by the additional
device alerting in some other way only in the room where it is placed. Thus,
good but not sufficient.

3. By providing an interface directly from the terminal to a commonly
available external alerting system. Then the alerting signal can be
integrated with signals from other alerting sources such as door, other
phones, fire-alarm, etc. A simple physical contact closure is the currently
most suitable. Variations may be to provide an electronic telephone ring
signal or a wireless signal to a common alerting system.

4. By having a network connection with a device responding on the same
address as the video terminal, and this device has the alerting mechanism or
external alerting interface. This is similar to 3), only that this kind of
device can be developed and used with all video terminals using the same
call control protocol without changing the terminal itself.


For types 3 and 4, it will be a shared responsibility. The terminal
manufacturer must provide an interface and describe what alerting systems it
is compatible with, and the procuring agency must make sure that the
appropriate alerting system is available.

I think the language we agreed on in the call matches this reality
reasonably well.

But..
The alerting provisions should be valid for all kinds of telecom terminals:
voice terminals with amplification, real-time text terminals and video
terminals. I cannot find it mentioned for other terminals. Should it be
moved to a common place?


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



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:06 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


Video Support

1. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via
point to point real time video communications and video relay services for
incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.

2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
interoperability to permit communication between and among users of
terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.

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

4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in
order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time
video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or
is talking in the picture.

5. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect,
but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual?s video
communications from intermingling with packets of the general government
network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an
isolated communications terminal.

Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real
time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same
way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2)
Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading
and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section.
(3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading
real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found
in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1. <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en>
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en. (4) External alerting can be
achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend
on the needs of the individual using the product.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gunnar Hellström <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subcommittee'
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.

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

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

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

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

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



_____

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video Support


1. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via
point to point real time video communications and video relay services for
incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.

2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
interoperability to permit communication between and among users of
terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.

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

4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in
order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time
video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or
is talking in the picture.

5. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect,
but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual?s video
communications from intermingling with packets of the general government
network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an
isolated communications terminal.


Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real
time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same
way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2)
Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading
and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section.
(3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading
real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found
in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1. <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en>
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en. (4) External alerting can be
achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend
on the needs of the individual using the product.

Karen




----- Original Message -----

From: Norman Williams <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: TEITAC Telecommunications <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subcommittee
Cc: 'TEITAC Committee' <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norman


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


This looks good,
I have a few comments:

In 3, about alerting, the user need to be allowed to select the type of
alerting that suits them, among flashes, vibration or strong sound. E.g.
deaf-blind users have little use of a flash, but very good use of video
communication (if it is combined with text.)

Proposed change of words from "must provide an external flashing system that
is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."
to: "must provide an external alerting system that is capable of alerting
users of incoming calls by flashes, vibrations or sound as selected by the
user".

In 3: There are many alerting systems on the market. Therefore, for the
videophone manufacturer it is generally more important to provide an
interface to an external alerting system than to provide the alerting
system, while for the procuring organisation it is important to provide the
whole solution to the user.
I leave to the discussion to decide if the sentence shall start with "must
provide an interface to"... or be as it is now.

In 4, I feel a sting in my heart when I see that we say that 15 fps is
sufficient for lip reading. This is a severe adaptation to reality, to
enable existing mobile equipment to be procured. It will be possible to use
them for some cumbersome signing, but not for lip-reading. The sentence
starts with "minimal", and that is good, but can we further encourage higher
frame rates to avoid jerky, unreadable video?

I suggest adding one more point about other media.
For remote sign language interpreting it is essential to have audio together
with video.
For some lip-reading users, it is essential to have audio combined with
video.
For deaf-blind users and for video relay calls, it is essential to have
real-time text or a form of text communication that the relay service
supports together with the video. It is heavily used in video relays for
things that are cumbersome to fingerspell, like phone numbers, addresses
etc.

If this is not interlinked to the sections about real-time text in some
other obvious way, I suggest to add:

x. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
inclusion of compatible audio and real-time text in the calls.


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



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner
Mary-AMB004
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.




This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1 pm ET.



This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I have made,
per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes, and a change to the
first provision to make clear that this section is not designed to require
video communications for every single federal employee.



Video Support


1. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via
point to point real time video communications and video relay services for
incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.

2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must support
interoperability to permit communication between and among users of
terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.

3. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video
communications in real time between and among individuals must provide an
external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming
calls.

4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in
order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time
video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or
is talking in the picture.

5. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect,
but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual?s video
communications from intermingling with packets of the general government
network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an
isolated communications terminal.


Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real
time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same
way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2)
Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading
and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section.
(3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading
real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found
in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en>
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en





__________ NOD32 2596 (20071017) Information __________

Detta meddelande dr genomsvkt av NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.nod32.com

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Oct 18 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Video Support text.

Having a general section that requires alerting generally might not be a bad idea, but I would like to leave it as well in this section for absolute clarity about the video communication requirements.

Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunnar Hellström
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


Sorry for jumping back and forth on the alerting requirement.

I think the version discussed last in the call came out good.

So, just for clarification, I want to explain the reality that we want the requirements to match:

We want the alerting requirement to suit people with at least the following disabilities:
a. Deaf,
b. Hard-of-hearing
c. Deaf-blindness

And it shall be possible to use it with the following terminals:
1. Handheld
2. Dedicated hardware
3. PC-based

At least the following types of alerting can be suitable:
A. Flashing strong enough so that it is perceived in daylight in the room even if you do not look towards the terminal.
B. Vibration of a small carry-on device. Either the handheld terminal itself, if it is light enough to be carried always, or a wireless vibrator.
C. Strong sound.

It is usually good to combine a couple of alerting methods.

Alerting can be provided in the following ways:

1. Internally in handheld devices. It is usually good to combine that with external alerting, because in the home or office you do not want to carry the terminal on you all the time.

2. Internally in stationary devices, by building in flashes and strong sound. This may be good but is very seldomly sufficient. The user may already have a suitable alerting system with wireless alerting to a vibrator with good coverage in the whole office, and is not helped by the additional device alerting in some other way only in the room where it is placed. Thus, good but not sufficient.

3. By providing an interface directly from the terminal to a commonly available external alerting system. Then the alerting signal can be integrated with signals from other alerting sources such as door, other phones, fire-alarm, etc. A simple physical contact closure is the currently most suitable. Variations may be to provide an electronic telephone ring signal or a wireless signal to a common alerting system.

4. By having a network connection with a device responding on the same address as the video terminal, and this device has the alerting mechanism or external alerting interface. This is similar to 3), only that this kind of device can be developed and used with all video terminals using the same call control protocol without changing the terminal itself.


For types 3 and 4, it will be a shared responsibility. The terminal manufacturer must provide an interface and describe what alerting systems it is compatible with, and the procuring agency must make sure that the appropriate alerting system is available.

I think the language we agreed on in the call matches this reality reasonably well.

But..
The alerting provisions should be valid for all kinds of telecom terminals: voice terminals with amplification, real-time text terminals and video terminals. I cannot find it mentioned for other terminals. Should it be moved to a common place?


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




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz Strauss
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:06 PM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


Video Support
1.. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via point to point real time video communications and video relay services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.
2.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. In complying with this subpart, each agency shall make available an external alerting system that is compatible with the communication products or systems it uses to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals and that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls.
4.. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
5.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual's video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an isolated communications terminal.
Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en. (4) External alerting can be achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend on the needs of the individual using the product.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunnar Hellström
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video Support
1.. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via point to point real time video communications and video relay services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.
2.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. In complying with this subpart, each agency shall ensure it makes available an external flashing system that is compatible with the communication products or systems it uses to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals and that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls.
4.. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
5.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual's video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an isolated communications terminal.
Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en. (4) External alerting can be achieved via flashes, vibrations and sound; the preferred method will depend on the needs of the individual using the product.

Karen



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Norman




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


This looks good,
I have a few comments:

In 3, about alerting, the user need to be allowed to select the type of alerting that suits them, among flashes, vibration or strong sound. E.g. deaf-blind users have little use of a flash, but very good use of video communication (if it is combined with text.)

Proposed change of words from "must provide an external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls."
to: "must provide an external alerting system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls by flashes, vibrations or sound as selected by the user".

In 3: There are many alerting systems on the market. Therefore, for the videophone manufacturer it is generally more important to provide an interface to an external alerting system than to provide the alerting system, while for the procuring organisation it is important to provide the whole solution to the user.
I leave to the discussion to decide if the sentence shall start with "must provide an interface to"... or be as it is now.

In 4, I feel a sting in my heart when I see that we say that 15 fps is sufficient for lip reading. This is a severe adaptation to reality, to enable existing mobile equipment to be procured. It will be possible to use them for some cumbersome signing, but not for lip-reading. The sentence starts with "minimal", and that is good, but can we further encourage higher frame rates to avoid jerky, unreadable video?

I suggest adding one more point about other media.
For remote sign language interpreting it is essential to have audio together with video.
For some lip-reading users, it is essential to have audio combined with video.
For deaf-blind users and for video relay calls, it is essential to have real-time text or a form of text communication that the relay service supports together with the video. It is heavily used in video relays for things that are cumbersome to fingerspell, like phone numbers, addresses etc.

If this is not interlinked to the sections about real-time text in some other obvious way, I suggest to add:

x. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support inclusion of compatible audio and real-time text in the calls.


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




------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner Mary-AMB004
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:36 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Proposed Video Support text.


This will be discussed on the telecom wg conf. call tomorrow at 1 pm ET.


This is from Karen Peltz Strauss who says: The three changes I have made, per requests from the group are: 2 new advisory notes, and a change to the first provision to make clear that this section is not designed to require video communications for every single federal employee.


Video Support
1.. Each agency must ensure the availability of communication access via point to point real time video communications and video relay services for incoming and outgoing calls for individuals who need such access.
2.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must support interoperability to permit communication between and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and service providers.
3.. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit video communications in real time between and among individuals must provide an external flashing system that is capable of alerting users of incoming calls.
4.. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400 milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency that will support real time video communication in which one or more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
5.. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an individual's video communications from intermingling with packets of the general government network, for example, through the installation of a separate line to an isolated communications terminal.
Advisory notes: (1) The requirement to permit video communications in real time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice mail. (2) Twenty frames per second or better is recommended to facilitate lip reading and fingerspelling in the video communications provided under this section. (3) Explanatory information concerning sign language and lip-reading real-time conversation using low bit rate video communication can be found in ITU-T H-Series Supplement 1.
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.Sup1/en



__________ NOD32 2596 (20071017) Information __________

Detta meddelande dr genomsvkt av NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.nod32.com