Thread Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Relative Luminance

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 4:40 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Relative Luminance

Following is the definition for Relative Luminance. If you do not agree that
this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason.

Relative Luminance

The relative perceived brightness of any point, normalized to 0 for black
and 1 for maximum white.

Notes:
The relative luminance of an sRGB color is defined as L = 0.2126 * R +
0.7152 * G + 0.0722 * B where R, G and B are defined as:

* if RsRGB <= 0.03928 then R = RsRGB/12.92 else R =
((RsRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4
* if GsRGB <= 0.03928 then G = GsRGB/12.92 else G =
((GsRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4
* if BsRGB <= 0.03928 then B = BsRGB/12.92 else B =
((BsRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4 and RsRGB, GsRGB, and BsRGB are defined as:


* RsRGB = R8bit/255
* GsRGB = G8bit/255
* BsRGB = B8bit/255

Notes on the formulas

1. The "^" character is the exponentiation operator. (Formula taken from
[sRGB] and [IEC-4WD]).
2. Almost all systems used today to view Web content assume sRGB encoding.
Unless it is known that another color space will be used to process and
display the content, authors should evaluate using sRGB colorspace.
3. For dithered colors, use average values of the colors used (average R,
average G, and average B).
4. Tools are available that automatically do the calculations when testing
contrast and flash.
5. A MathML version of the relative luminance definition is available.




<http://www.paciellogroup.com/>

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 4:45 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Text

Following is the definition for Text. If you do not agree that this
definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note
that this text is now harmonized with WCAG.


Text



"Sequence of characters that is programmatically determinable, where the
sequence is expressing something in human language."

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 4:55 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: General Flash and Red Flash Thresholds

Following is the definition for General Flash and Red Flash Thresholds. If
you do not agree that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state
your reason. Please note, that this definition was recommended for approval
to the committee during our January 2 conference call. Revisions were made
to include Hardware additions. The hardware additions are italicized:

General Flash and Red Flash Thresholds

"A sequence of flashes or rapidly changing image sequences where all three
of the following are true:

1. There are more than 3 General Flashes and/or more than 3 Red Flashes
within any one-second period; and
2. The flashing is below 50 Hz; and
3. The combined area of flashes occurring concurrently occupies more than a
total of 0.006 steradians within any 10 degree visual field on the screen
(25% of any 10 degree visual field on the screen) at typical viewing
distance, and where:

* a. For software and content: A General Flash is defined as a pair of
opposing changes in relative luminance of 10% or more of the maximum
relative luminance where the relative luminance of the darker image is below
0.80; and where "a pair of opposing changes" is an increase followed by a
decrease, or a decrease followed by an increase, and

* b. For hardware: A General Flash is defined as a pair of opposing
changes in luminance of 20 candellas/m2 and where "a pair of opposing
changes" is an increase followed by a decrease, or a decrease followed by an
increase, and

* c. A Red Flash is defined as any pair of opposing transitions
involving a saturated red.

Exception: Flashing that is a fine balanced alternating such as white noise
or an alternating checkerboard-like pattern with "squares" smaller than 0.1
degree on a side does not violate the thresholds.

Note 1: For general software or Web content, using a 341 x 256 pixel
rectangle anywhere on the displayed screen area when the content is viewed
at 1024 x 768 pixels will provide a good estimate of a 10 degree visual
field for standard screen sizes and viewing distances (e.g. 15-17 inch
screen at 22-26 inches). (Higher resolution displays showing the same
rendering of the content yield smaller and safer images so it is lower
resolutions that are used to define the thresholds.)

Note 2: A transition is the change in relative luminance (or relative
luminance/color for red flashing) between adjacent peaks and valleys in a
plot of relative luminance (or relative luminance/color for red flashing)
measurement against time. A flash consists of two opposing transitions.

Note 3: For general software, or Web content: The current working definition
in the field for "pair of opposing transitions involving a saturated red" is
where, for either or both states involved in each transition, R/(R+ G + B)
>= 0.8, and the change in the value of (R-G-B)x320 is > 20 (negative values
of (R-G-B)x320 are set to zero) for both transitions. R, G, B values range
from 0-1 as specified in "relative luminance" definition. (Harding and
Binnie 2002)

Note 4: For general software, or Web content: Tools are available that will
carry out analysis from video screen capture.

Note 5: No tool is necessary to evaluate for this condition if flashing is
less than or equal to 3 flashes in any one second or greater than 50Hz.
Content automatically passes (see #1 and #2 above).

Note 6: 50Hz is used to coincide with the AC line frequency in Europe and
other countries. However almost half of the photosensitive population is
susceptible to 50Hz flashing whereas only 15% are susceptible to 60Hz. 75Hz
or higher is recommended where possible.

Note 7: To fail, the threshold change in luminance (or relative luminance)
must be true for all points within the .006 steradians. (It is not the
average value.)"

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Captions

Thanks Geoff. EWG will make that correction.

Mike Paciello
Cell: +1.603.566.7713


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Freed [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:50 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus
> Decision: Captions
>
>
> Small correction:
>
> "Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles..."
> should be changed to "Note 1: Captions are similar to
> dialog-only subtitles..."
>
> Geoff/NCAM
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Mike Paciello wrote:
>
> > Following is the definition for Captions. If you do not agree that
> > this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason.
> > Please note that captions previously achieved committee consensus.
> > However, to better clarify the definition, Captions has
> been revised
> > as follows:
> >
> > Captions
> >
> > "Synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
> > Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles
> except captions
> > convey not only the content of spoken dialog, but also text
> > equivalents for other (non-spoken) audio information including
> > important sound effects, music, laughter, speaker
> identification and
> > location.
> >
> > Note 2: Captions can be real text that can be turned on and off
> > (closed captions) or images of text embedded in video (open
> captions).
> >
> > Note 3: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
> > information.
> >
> > Note 4: In some countries captions are called subtitles."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:05 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Captions

Following is the definition for Captions. If you do not agree that this
definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note
that captions previously achieved committee consensus. However, to better
clarify the definition, Captions has been revised as follows:

Captions

"Synchronized text equivalents for audio information.

Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles except captions convey
not only the content of spoken dialog, but also text equivalents for other
(non-spoken) audio information including important sound effects, music,
laughter, speaker identification and location.

Note 2: Captions can be real text that can be turned on and off (closed
captions) or images of text embedded in video (open captions).

Note 3: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key information.


Note 4: In some countries captions are called subtitles."

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:10 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Enhanced Audio

Following is the definition for Enhanced Audio. If you do not agree that
this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please
note that this definition was added to support 1.1-E - With Limited Hearing.
If the committee decides to rewrite the 1.1-E provision, the definition is
not needed and will be removed. Consensus for this definition includes
accepting the definition and agreeing to removing it if no longer needed.

Enhanced Audio

"Audio which has been enhanced through amplification and/or through a
variety of audio filters to make it easier for people with hearing
impairments to understand."

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:15 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Simple Tactile Form

Following is the definition for Simple Tactile Form. If you do not agree
that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason.

Simple Tactile Form

"Tactile form that does not require the memorization of any spatial or
temporal tactile patterns.

Note 1: Simple vibration or switch up/down positions are examples of
non-coded tactile forms.

Note 2: Braille, tactile Morse code, and vibration patterns are examples of
more complex tactile forms that require memorization of non-trivial spatial
and tactile patterns respectively.

Note 3: Different numbers of tactile buzzes, or different frequency buzzes
would be non-trivial patterns, and would not be simple tactile forms."

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:20 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Free-Standing

Following is the definition for Free-Standing. If you do not agree that this
definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note
that the committee is requesting input from the Access Board on whether
Free-Standing should be defined since it is used in other parts of the ADA
regulations and could have impact there. Consensus for this definition
includes accepting the definition and agreeing to removing it if no longer
needed.


Free-Standing

"Standing on the floor and not intended to be placed on a table or built
into a structure

Example: The kiosk was a free standing device that stood on the carpet in
front of the registration desk."

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Captions

WCAG used to use this definition. However



- Sean from Microsoft pointed out that captions often contain non-text
equivalents.



- Andrew Kirkpatrick pointed out that closed captions do not need to be
images of text embedded in video



Based on that input and other comments made to WCAG draft the WCAG
definition for Captions is as follows:

(Note "audio description" changed to "video description" to match TEITAC
useage.)



Suggest using this definition - or at least offering it to the Group to see
if there are problems with it.






captions (WCAG 2.0)


synchronized media or text equivalents for audio information including both
dialog and non-dialog audio information

Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog-only subtitles except captions convey
not only the content of spoken dialog, but also equivalents for non-dialog
audio information needed to understand the program content, including sound
effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and location.

Note 2: Closed Captions are captions that can be turned on and off in some
players.

Note 3: Open Captions are captions that cannot be turned off. For example,
if the captions are visual equivalent images of text embedded in video.

Note 4: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant information in the
video.

Note 5: In some countries, captions are called subtitles.

Note 6: Video descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned since
they are descriptions of information that is already presented visually.






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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Mike Paciello
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 5:37 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Captions

Following is the definition for Captions. If you do not agree that this
definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note
that captions previously achieved committee consensus. However, to better
clarify the definition, Captions has been revised as follows:



Captions



"Synchronized text equivalents for audio information.

Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles except captions convey
not only the content of spoken dialog, but also text equivalents for other
(non-spoken) audio information including important sound effects, music,
laughter, speaker identification and location.

Note 2: Captions can be real text that can be turned on and off (closed
captions) or images of text embedded in video (open captions).

Note 3: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key information.


Note 4: In some countries captions are called subtitles."

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Captions

TEITAC Members --

For the sake of orderliness, please refrain from making a decision until I
can be sure that this is final language and that language is put into the
Wiki.

- Mike

Mike Paciello
Cell: +1.603.566.7713



_____

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 4:09 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Captions



WCAG used to use this definition. However



- Sean from Microsoft pointed out that captions often contain non-text
equivalents.



- Andrew Kirkpatrick pointed out that closed captions do not need to be
images of text embedded in video



Based on that input and other comments made to WCAG draft the WCAG
definition for Captions is as follows:

(Note "audio description" changed to "video description" to match TEITAC
useage.)



Suggest using this definition - or at least offering it to the Group to see
if there are problems with it.






captions (WCAG 2.0)


synchronized media or text equivalents for audio information including both
dialog and non-dialog audio information

Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog-only subtitles except captions convey
not only the content of spoken dialog, but also equivalents for non-dialog
audio information needed to understand the program content, including sound
effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and location.

Note 2: Closed Captions are captions that can be turned on and off in some
players.

Note 3: Open Captions are captions that cannot be turned off. For example,
if the captions are visual equivalent images of text embedded in video.

Note 4: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant information in the
video.

Note 5: In some countries, captions are called subtitles.

Note 6: Video descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned since
they are descriptions of information that is already presented visually.






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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Mike Paciello
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 5:37 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Captions

Following is the definition for Captions. If you do not agree that this
definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note
that captions previously achieved committee consensus. However, to better
clarify the definition, Captions has been revised as follows:



Captions



"Synchronized text equivalents for audio information.

Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles except captions convey
not only the content of spoken dialog, but also text equivalents for other
(non-spoken) audio information including important sound effects, music,
laughter, speaker identification and location.

Note 2: Captions can be real text that can be turned on and off (closed
captions) or images of text embedded in video (open captions).

Note 3: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key information.


Note 4: In some countries captions are called subtitles."

From: Michele Budris
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Captions

Done.

Michele

On Mar 9, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Mike Paciello wrote:

> Thanks Geoff. EWG will make that correction.
>
> Mike Paciello
> Cell: +1.603.566.7713
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Geoff Freed [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:50 PM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus
>> Decision: Captions
>>
>>
>> Small correction:
>>
>> "Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles..."
>> should be changed to "Note 1: Captions are similar to
>> dialog-only subtitles..."
>>
>> Geoff/NCAM
>>
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Mike Paciello wrote:
>>
>>> Following is the definition for Captions. If you do not agree that
>>> this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason.
>>> Please note that captions previously achieved committee consensus.
>>> However, to better clarify the definition, Captions has
>> been revised
>>> as follows:
>>>
>>> Captions
>>>
>>> "Synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
>>> Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles
>> except captions
>>> convey not only the content of spoken dialog, but also text
>>> equivalents for other (non-spoken) audio information including
>>> important sound effects, music, laughter, speaker
>> identification and
>>> location.
>>>
>>> Note 2: Captions can be real text that can be turned on and off
>>> (closed captions) or images of text embedded in video (open
>> captions).
>>>
>>> Note 3: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
>>> information.
>>>
>>> Note 4: In some countries captions are called subtitles."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:40 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring Tools

Following is the definition for Authoring Tools. If you do not agree that
this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please
note, that this definition was recommended for approval to the committee
during our January 2 conference call.

Authoring Tools

"Any software intended to create or modify content for publication in one or
more formats that support compliance with the user interface and content
provisions.

Note: Simple text editors that can only create or modify content in
conforming formats by directly editing the code are not considered authoring
tools under this definition."

From: Geoff Freed
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Captions

Small correction:

"Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles..." should be
changed to "Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog-only subtitles..."

Geoff/NCAM


On Mar 9, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Mike Paciello wrote:

> Following is the definition for Captions. If you do not agree that
> this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason.
> Please note that captions previously achieved committee consensus.
> However, to better clarify the definition, Captions has been
> revised as follows:
>
> Captions
>
> "Synchronized text equivalents for audio information.
> Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog only subtitles except
> captions convey not only the content of spoken dialog, but also
> text equivalents for other (non-spoken) audio information including
> important sound effects, music, laughter, speaker identification
> and location.
>
> Note 2: Captions can be real text that can be turned on and off
> (closed captions) or images of text embedded in video (open captions).
>
> Note 3: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant or key
> information.
>
> Note 4: In some countries captions are called subtitles."
>
>
>
>
>

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 5:50 PM
Subject: Definition Consensus Decision: Caption Text

Following is the definition for Caption Text. If you do not agree that this
definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note
that this definition is harmonized with WCAG.

Caption Text

"Text presented and synchronized with
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#synchronizedmediadef> synchronized media
to provide not only the speech, but also non-speech information conveyed
through sound, including meaningful sound effects and identification of
speakers

Note 1: In some countries, the term "subtitle" is used to refer to dialogue
only and "captions" is used as the term for dialogue plus sounds and speaker
identification. In other countries, subtitle (or its translation) is used to
refer to both.

Note 2: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#audiodescdef> Video descriptions
can be, but do not need to be, captioned since they are descriptions of
information that is already presented visually."




<http://www.paciellogroup.com/>

From: Jasionowski, Tony
Date: Sun, Mar 09 2008 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Enhanced Audio

Folks,
I propose to replace the word "filters" with the more appropriate "signal processing":

Enhanced Audio

"Audio which has been enhanced through amplification and/or through a variety of audio signal processing to make it easier for people with hearing impairments to understand."


Tony Jasionowski
Senior Group Manager Accessibility
Panasonic Corporation of North America (PNA)
Technology Liaison & Alliances Group (TLAG)
1E-6
One Panasonic Way
Secaucus, New Jersey 07094
Tel.: 201-348-7777
Fax: 201-348-7807
" = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " (new)
"www.panasonic.com"

From: Baker, Robert C.
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring Tools

Concur with minor change,

"Any software intended to create or modify electronic content for
publication in one or more formats that support compliance with the user
interface and content provisions.

the current statement "that support compliance with the user interface
and content provisions" is confusing and perhaps can be deleted.

Robert

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring Tools

Thank you Robert. EWG will make the adjustment.

-mike

Mike Paciello
Cell: +1.603.566.7713



_____

From: Baker, Robert C. [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 6:45 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: RE: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring
Tools


Concur with minor change,

"Any software intended to create or modify electronic content for
publication in one or more formats that support compliance with the user
interface and content provisions.

the current statement "that support compliance with the user interface and
content provisions" is confusing and perhaps can be deleted.

Robert

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Caption Text

Why do we need a definition for both "captions" and "caption text"?

Andi




"Mike Paciello"
<mpaciello@paciel
logroup.com> To
Sent by: "'TEITAC Committee'"
teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
ac.org
Subject
[teitac-committee] Definition
03/09/2008 05:37 Consensus Decision: Caption Text
PM


Please respond to
mpaciello@paciell
ogroup.com;
Please respond to
TEITAC Committee
<teitac-committee
@list.teitac.org>






Following is the definition for Caption Text. If you do not agree that this
definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note
that this definition is harmonized with WCAG.

Caption Text

"Text presented and synchronized with synchronized media to provide not
only the speech, but also non-speech information conveyed through sound,
including meaningful sound effects and identification of speakers


Note 1: In some countries, the term "subtitle" is used to refer to dialogue
only and "captions" is used as the term for dialogue plus sounds and
speaker identification. In other countries, subtitle (or its translation)
is used to refer to both.


Note 2: Video descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned since
they are descriptions of information that is already presented visually."

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Simple Tactile Form

What about the arrangement of keys on a mobile phone or a QWERTY keyboard?
I would think these are simple tactile forms but would fail the definition
because they require memorization of the spatial layout.

Andi




"Mike Paciello"
<mpaciello@paciel
logroup.com> To
Sent by: "'TEITAC Committee'"
teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
ac.org
Subject
[teitac-committee] Definition
03/09/2008 05:37 Consensus Decision: Simple Tactile
PM Form


Please respond to
mpaciello@paciell
ogroup.com;
Please respond to
TEITAC Committee
<teitac-committee
@list.teitac.org>






Following is the definition for Simple Tactile Form. If you do not agree
that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason.

Simple Tactile Form

"Tactile form that does not require the memorization of any spatial or
temporal tactile patterns.


Note 1: Simple vibration or switch up/down positions are examples of
non-coded tactile forms.


Note 2: Braille, tactile Morse code, and vibration patterns are examples of
more complex tactile forms that require memorization of non-trivial spatial
and tactile patterns respectively.


Note 3: Different numbers of tactile buzzes, or different frequency buzzes
would be non-trivial patterns, and would not be simple tactile forms."

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring Tools

Mike and Robert,

I don't think the phrase can be deleted. It's meant to scope the definition
to tools that support content formats which enable the creation of
accessible content. If you can't create accessible content in the first
place with a particular content format, then there's no use requiring the
authoring tool to support the authoring tool requirements.

Andi




"Mike Paciello"
<mpaciello@paciel
logroup.com> To
Sent by: "'Baker, Robert C.'"
teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Committee'"
ac.org < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

03/10/2008 08:48 Subject
AM Re: [teitac-committee] Definition
Consensus Decision: Authoring
Tools
Please respond to
mpaciello@paciell
ogroup.com;
Please respond to
TEITAC Committee
<teitac-committee
@list.teitac.org>






Thank you Robert. EWG will make the adjustment.

-mike

Mike Paciello
Cell: +1.603.566.7713


From: Baker, Robert C. [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent:, Monday, March 10, 2008 6:45 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: RE: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring
Tools

Concur with minor change,

"Any software intended to create or modify electronic content for
publication in one or more formats that support compliance with the user
interface and content provisions.

the current statement "that support compliance with the user interface and
content provisions" is confusing and perhaps can be deleted.

Robert

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: SimpleTactile Form

I don't think this means you may not have to know some
inter-relationships to identify a tactual representation, but it means
that the complexity level can't be very high. Examples of switch
up/down is not the most appealing example for me, as that is quite
specific, e.g. feel the dip-switches and if the two switches on the
right are up, the unit is off, is pretty complicated in my view. I've
done the dip-switch thing often enough to say while doable, its not
something that doesn't require knowledge.

I think what we are really after is that "simple tactile" must be
discernible without use of application of arbitrary independent
meanings. so, for example, if a remote has buttons on it, and they have
tactile shapes, those shapes may be sufficient to identify the buttons,
unless they only had Braille which requires knowledge of Braille. This
is not a perfectly black and white line here.

so, per the keyboard example, it might pass as a common knowledge thing,
but who says what's common?
Really what we need is that tactile indicators are provided for hardware
sufficiently enough for someone without vision to use the device. N now
we've added the requirement that the user also does not need to know
any organized tactile communications mechanism either. As a Braille
reader, I think Braille should be considered sufficient, and am in
support of Braille literacy as a general rule. However, Braille doesn't
fit everywhere, to other forms of tactile communications must be
used--shapes, textures, combinations of shape and texture, which are
intuitive.







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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:35 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision:
SimpleTactile Form

What about the arrangement of keys on a mobile phone or a QWERTY
keyboard?
I would think these are simple tactile forms but would fail the
definition because they require memorization of the spatial layout.

Andi





"Mike Paciello"

<mpaciello@paciel

logroup.com>
To
Sent by: "'TEITAC Committee'"

teitac-committee-
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
cc
ac.org


Subject
[teitac-committee] Definition

03/09/2008 05:37 Consensus Decision: Simple
Tactile
PM Form





Please respond to

mpaciello@paciell

ogroup.com;

Please respond to

TEITAC Committee

<teitac-committee

@list.teitac.org>









Following is the definition for Simple Tactile Form. If you do not agree
that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason.

Simple Tactile Form

"Tactile form that does not require the memorization of any spatial or
temporal tactile patterns.


Note 1: Simple vibration or switch up/down positions are examples of
non-coded tactile forms.


Note 2: Braille, tactile Morse code, and vibration patterns are examples
of more complex tactile forms that require memorization of non-trivial
spatial and tactile patterns respectively.


Note 3: Different numbers of tactile buzzes, or different frequency
buzzes would be non-trivial patterns, and would not be simple tactile
forms."

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision:Authoring Tools

Andi is correct.

The idea was, that for a tool like NotePad, which edits files in ASCII,
such things as alternate text are not feasible, or sensible, so the
authoring tool requirements would not be applicable. My only question,
Andi, is, how should such tools be considered? If we can identify that
maybe an additional note for such tools would be helpful?

So, for example, an org-chart program uses a proprietary format to
present the organizations, it has graphics, relationships, text, and
pictures. Just because that format is inaccessible does not, in my
view, mean that the tool shouldn't produce accessible content. It can't
because the format chosen won't allow it to work. How do we address
this?




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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:44 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision:Authoring
Tools

Mike and Robert,

I don't think the phrase can be deleted. It's meant to scope the
definition to tools that support content formats which enable the
creation of accessible content. If you can't create accessible content
in the first place with a particular content format, then there's no use
requiring the authoring tool to support the authoring tool requirements.

Andi





"Mike Paciello"

<mpaciello@paciel

logroup.com>
To
Sent by: "'Baker, Robert C.'"

teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
"'TEITAC
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Committee'"

ac.org
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

cc


03/10/2008 08:48
Subject
AM Re: [teitac-committee] Definition

Consensus Decision: Authoring

Tools

Please respond to

mpaciello@paciell

ogroup.com;

Please respond to

TEITAC Committee

<teitac-committee

@list.teitac.org>









Thank you Robert. EWG will make the adjustment.

-mike

Mike Paciello
Cell: +1.603.566.7713


From: Baker, Robert C. [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] Sent:, Monday,
March 10, 2008 6:45 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: RE: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring
Tools

Concur with minor change,

"Any software intended to create or modify electronic content for
publication in one or more formats that support compliance with the user
interface and content provisions.

the current statement "that support compliance with the user interface
and content provisions" is confusing and perhaps can be deleted.

Robert

From: James Elekes
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Free-Standing

Mike and Folks,

Since my departure from Board and as its TEITAC Liaison, have
monitored activities. Until now, had few, if any concerns. The
definition, as proposed, does not take into full scope the use of the term.

"Free Standing", in the built environment brings to mind the
concept that an element functions independently of any other element
or, system of elements. The present view of "Free Standing" in a
majority of the disability community is one of functionality rather
than positioning.

In the cases when the definition is strictly applied to physical
elements in the built environment, the general consensus is the term
"Free Standing" means, standing alone or, on its own foundation free
of archetectural, supportive framework or attachments. Under this
definition, the power source for the "Free Standing" element most
often is considered to be contained within the structure and, not an
adjunct to the unit.

In the example cited by Mike, the Kiosk is functionally "Free
Standing" as while a part of the "Reservation Desk", it stands on its
own separately.

Thanks much for your interest, Jim

James J. Elekes, M.Ed, MPA, CPM
Former Public Member/TEITAC Liaison
United States Access Board

(O) 888.564.8430
(H) 843.215.3085
(E) = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


>Subject: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Free-Standing
>Following is the definition for Free-Standing. If you do not agree
>that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your
>reason. Please note that the committee is requesting input from the
>Access Board on whether Free-Standing should be defined since it is
>used in other parts of the ADA regulations and could have impact
>there. Consensus for this definition includes accepting the
>definition and agreeing to removing it if no longer needed.
>
>
>Free-Standing
>
>"Standing on the floor and not intended to be placed on a table or
>built into a structure
>
>Example: The kiosk was a free standing device that stood on the
>carpet in front of the registration desk."
>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Enhanced Audio

I think the preferred term is "hearing loss" not "hearing impairments."

Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Paciello
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 6:37 PM
Subject: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Enhanced Audio


Following is the definition for Enhanced Audio. If you do not agree that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note that this definition was added to support 1.1-E - With Limited Hearing. If the committee decides to rewrite the 1.1-E provision, the definition is not needed and will be removed. Consensus for this definition includes accepting the definition and agreeing to removing it if no longer needed.

Enhanced Audio
"Audio which has been enhanced through amplification and/or through a variety of audio filters to make it easier for people with hearing impairments to understand."





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: James Elekes
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: SimpleTactile Form

as a totally blind individual, I agree with Allen's assessment. In 30
years of using braille/tactile to identify a myriad of controls, I
have the same shared experiences and, concerns related to
instructions for usage.

Regards, Jim

James J. Elekes, M.Ed, MPA, CPM
Former Public Member/ TEITAC Liaison
United States Access Board
(O) 888.564.8430
(E) = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

At 10:52 AM 3/10/2008, you wrote:
>I don't think this means you may not have to know some
>inter-relationships to identify a tactual representation, but it means
>that the complexity level can't be very high. Examples of switch
>up/down is not the most appealing example for me, as that is quite
>specific, e.g. feel the dip-switches and if the two switches on the
>right are up, the unit is off, is pretty complicated in my view. I've
>done the dip-switch thing often enough to say while doable, its not
>something that doesn't require knowledge.
>
>I think what we are really after is that "simple tactile" must be
>discernible without use of application of arbitrary independent
>meanings. so, for example, if a remote has buttons on it, and they have
>tactile shapes, those shapes may be sufficient to identify the buttons,
>unless they only had Braille which requires knowledge of Braille. This
>is not a perfectly black and white line here.
>
>so, per the keyboard example, it might pass as a common knowledge thing,
>but who says what's common?
>Really what we need is that tactile indicators are provided for hardware
>sufficiently enough for someone without vision to use the device. N now
>we've added the requirement that the user also does not need to know
>any organized tactile communications mechanism either. As a Braille
>reader, I think Braille should be considered sufficient, and am in
>support of Braille literacy as a general rule. However, Braille doesn't
>fit everywhere, to other forms of tactile communications must be
>used--shapes, textures, combinations of shape and texture, which are
>intuitive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
>Snow-Weaver
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:35 AM
>To: TEITAC Committee
>Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision:
>SimpleTactile Form
>
>What about the arrangement of keys on a mobile phone or a QWERTY
>keyboard?
>I would think these are simple tactile forms but would fail the
>definition because they require memorization of the spatial layout.
>
>Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Paciello"
>
> <mpaciello@paciel
>
> logroup.com>
>To
> Sent by: "'TEITAC Committee'"
>
> teitac-committee-
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>cc
> ac.org
>
>
>Subject
> [teitac-committee] Definition
>
> 03/09/2008 05:37 Consensus Decision: Simple
>Tactile
> PM Form
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> mpaciello@paciell
>
> ogroup.com;
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC Committee
>
> <teitac-committee
>
> @list.teitac.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Following is the definition for Simple Tactile Form. If you do not agree
>that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason.
>
>Simple Tactile Form
>
>"Tactile form that does not require the memorization of any spatial or
>temporal tactile patterns.
>
>
>Note 1: Simple vibration or switch up/down positions are examples of
>non-coded tactile forms.
>
>
>Note 2: Braille, tactile Morse code, and vibration patterns are examples
>of more complex tactile forms that require memorization of non-trivial
>spatial and tactile patterns respectively.
>
>
>Note 3: Different numbers of tactile buzzes, or different frequency
>buzzes would be non-trivial patterns, and would not be simple tactile
>forms."
>

From: Mike Paciello
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision:Authoring Tools

Thank you Andi. In fact, I've only directed the EWG to make the electronic
content edit at this time.

- Mike

Mike Paciello
Cell: +1.603.566.7713


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 7:44 AM
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus
> Decision:Authoring Tools
>
> Mike and Robert,
>
> I don't think the phrase can be deleted. It's meant to scope
> the definition to tools that support content formats which
> enable the creation of accessible content. If you can't
> create accessible content in the first place with a
> particular content format, then there's no use requiring the
> authoring tool to support the authoring tool requirements.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Paciello"
>
> <mpaciello@paciel
>
> logroup.com>
> To
> Sent by: "'Baker, Robert C.'"
>
> teitac-committee-
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Committee'"
>
> ac.org
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> cc
>
>
> 03/10/2008 08:48
> Subject
> AM Re: [teitac-committee]
> Definition
> Consensus Decision:
> Authoring
> Tools
>
> Please respond to
>
> mpaciello@paciell
>
> ogroup.com;
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC Committee
>
> <teitac-committee
>
> @list.teitac.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you Robert. EWG will make the adjustment.
>
> -mike
>
> Mike Paciello
> Cell: +1.603.566.7713
>
>
> From: Baker, Robert C. [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] Sent:,
> Monday, March 10, 2008 6:45 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
> Subject: RE: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus
> Decision: Authoring Tools
>
> Concur with minor change,
>
> "Any software intended to create or modify electronic content
> for publication in one or more formats that support
> compliance with the user interface and content provisions.
>
> the current statement "that support compliance with the user
> interface and content provisions" is confusing and perhaps
> can be deleted.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Caption Text

I agree that we should have one definition of captions, and just sent out a
similar e-mail to a smaller group. I propose that we condense the two
definitions into one and that the single definition read as follows:


Captions

"Syncronized text equivalents for audio information that provide not only
the spoken dialog, but also text equivalents for non-speech audio
information, including sound effects, music, laughter, speaker
identification and location.

Note 1: In some countries, the term "subtitle" is used to refer to dialogue
only and "captions" is used as the term for dialogue plus sounds and speaker
identification. In other countries, subtitle (or its translation) is used to
refer to both.

Note 2: Captions can be real text that can be turned on and off (closed
captions) or images of text embedded in video (open captions).

Note 3: Captions should not obsure or obstruct relevent or key information.
Note 4: Video descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned since
they are descriptions of information that is already presented visually."



Karen


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andi Snow-Weaver" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Committee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Caption Text


> Why do we need a definition for both "captions" and "caption text"?
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Paciello"
> <mpaciello@paciel
> logroup.com> To
> Sent by: "'TEITAC Committee'"
> teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
> ac.org
> Subject
> [teitac-committee] Definition
> 03/09/2008 05:37 Consensus Decision: Caption Text
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> mpaciello@paciell
> ogroup.com;
> Please respond to
> TEITAC Committee
> <teitac-committee
> @list.teitac.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Following is the definition for Caption Text. If you do not agree that
> this
> definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please note
> that this definition is harmonized with WCAG.
>
> Caption Text
>
> "Text presented and synchronized with synchronized media to provide not
> only the speech, but also non-speech information conveyed through sound,
> including meaningful sound effects and identification of speakers
>
>
> Note 1: In some countries, the term "subtitle" is used to refer to
> dialogue
> only and "captions" is used as the term for dialogue plus sounds and
> speaker identification. In other countries, subtitle (or its translation)
> is used to refer to both.
>
>
> Note 2: Video descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned since
> they are descriptions of information that is already presented visually."
>
>
>
>

From: James Elekes
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Enhanced Audio

Yes, Karen is correct. Base the affirmation per contact with NCD.

-Jim

James J. Elekes, m.Ed, MPA, CPM
Former Public Member/TEITAC Liaison
United States Access Board
(O) 888.564.8430
(E) = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

At 11:19 AM 3/10/2008, you wrote:
>I think the preferred term is "hearing loss" not "hearing impairments."
>
>Karen
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >Mike Paciello
>To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >'TEITAC Committee'
>Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 6:37 PM
>Subject: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Enhanced Audio
>
>Following is the definition for Enhanced Audio. If you do not agree
>that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your
>reason. Please note that this definition was added to support 1.1-E
>- With Limited Hearing. If the committee decides to rewrite the
>1.1-E provision, the definition is not needed and will be removed.
>Consensus for this definition includes accepting the definition and
>agreeing to removing it if no longer needed.
>
>Enhanced Audio
>
>"Audio which has been enhanced through amplification and/or through
>a variety of audio filters to make it easier for people with hearing
>impairments to understand."
>
>
>
>
>----------
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Free-Standing

Hi Jim,

I am not sure what you are asking for below. Which words in the definition
are you suggesting be changed?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of James Elekes
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:12 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus
> Decision: Free-Standing
>
> Mike and Folks,
>
> Since my departure from Board and as its TEITAC Liaison, have
> monitored activities. Until now, had few, if any concerns.
> The definition, as proposed, does not take into full scope
> the use of the term.
>
> "Free Standing", in the built environment brings to mind
> the concept that an element functions independently of any
> other element or, system of elements. The present view of
> "Free Standing" in a majority of the disability community is
> one of functionality rather than positioning.
>
> In the cases when the definition is strictly applied to
> physical elements in the built environment, the general
> consensus is the term "Free Standing" means, standing alone
> or, on its own foundation free of archetectural, supportive
> framework or attachments. Under this definition, the power
> source for the "Free Standing" element most often is
> considered to be contained within the structure and, not an
> adjunct to the unit.
>
> In the example cited by Mike, the Kiosk is functionally "Free
> Standing" as while a part of the "Reservation Desk", it
> stands on its own separately.
>
> Thanks much for your interest, Jim
>
> James J. Elekes, M.Ed, MPA, CPM
> Former Public Member/TEITAC Liaison
> United States Access Board
>
> (O) 888.564.8430
> (H) 843.215.3085
> (E) = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
> >Subject: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision:
> >Free-Standing Following is the definition for Free-Standing.
> If you do
> >not agree that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state
> >your reason. Please note that the committee is requesting input from
> >the Access Board on whether Free-Standing should be defined
> since it is
> >used in other parts of the ADA regulations and could have
> impact there.
> >Consensus for this definition includes accepting the definition and
> >agreeing to removing it if no longer needed.
> >
> >
> >Free-Standing
> >
> >"Standing on the floor and not intended to be placed on a table or
> >built into a structure
> >
> >Example: The kiosk was a free standing device that stood on
> the carpet
> >in front of the registration desk."
> >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Caption Text

Hi Karen,

I agree we should have just one definition

However- I think the solution is to just drop the "Caption Text" definition
and use the CAPTION definition without edit (unless someone finds a problem
with it)

Your edits below re-introduce issues by other members of both TEITAC and
WCAG that were resolved in the other definition.

We finally reached consensus on the captions definition in WCAG.   I would
hate to see all of that gone over again here.

I would ask if there are any objections to the other CAPTIONS definition ?
AS IS. (Without edits)

If there is a problem -  with the captions definition. ? then certainly we
should fix it.   but I wouldn?t change wording without a good reason since
it might just trigger another issue.

 

(for example your edits below re-introduce issues pointed out by Sean and by
Andrew that were resolved in the other text).

 


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


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-committee-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:16 AM
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Caption
> Text
>
> I agree that we should have one definition of captions, and just sent out
> a
> similar e-mail to a smaller group. I propose that we condense the two
> definitions into one and that the single definition read as follows:
>
>
> Captions
>
> "Syncronized text equivalents for audio information that provide not only
> the spoken dialog, but also text equivalents for non-speech audio
> information, including sound effects, music, laughter, speaker
> identification and location.
>
> Note 1: In some countries, the term "subtitle" is used to refer to
> dialogue
> only and "captions" is used as the term for dialogue plus sounds and
> speaker
> identification. In other countries, subtitle (or its translation) is used
> to
> refer to both.
>
> Note 2: Captions can be real text that can be turned on and off (closed
> captions) or images of text embedded in video (open captions).
>
> Note 3: Captions should not obsure or obstruct relevent or key
information.
> Note 4: Video descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned since
> they are descriptions of information that is already presented visually."
>
>
>
> Karen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andi Snow-Weaver" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Committee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Caption
> Text
>
>
> > Why do we need a definition for both "captions" and "caption text"?
> >
> > Andi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Mike Paciello"
> > <mpaciello@paciel
> > logroup.com>
> To
> > Sent by: "'TEITAC Committee'"
> > teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> cc
> > ac.org
> >
> Subject
> > [teitac-committee] Definition
> > 03/09/2008 05:37 Consensus Decision: Caption Text
> > PM
> >
> >
> > Please respond to
> > mpaciello@paciell
> > ogroup.com;
> > Please respond to
> > TEITAC Committee
> > <teitac-committee
> > @list.teitac.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Following is the definition for Caption Text. If you do not agree that
> > this
> > definition is acceptable, please reply and state your reason. Please
> note
> > that this definition is harmonized with WCAG.
> >
> > Caption Text
> >
> > "Text presented and synchronized with synchronized media to provide not
> > only the speech, but also non-speech information conveyed through sound,
> > including meaningful sound effects and identification of speakers
> >
> >
> > Note 1: In some countries, the term "subtitle" is used to refer to
> > dialogue
> > only and "captions" is used as the term for dialogue plus sounds and
> > speaker identification. In other countries, subtitle (or its
> translation)
> > is used to refer to both.
> >
> >
> > Note 2: Video descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned
> since
> > they are descriptions of information that is already presented
> visually."
> >
> >
> >
> >

From: Peter Korn
Date: Mon, Mar 10 2008 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Text

Hi Mike,

This definition is fine, EXCEPT that it uses a phrase that is also
defined - namely "programmatically determinable". Depending upon that
definition, this text definition is or is not fine by Sun. So, can we
attempt consensus on the 'programmatically determinable' definition first?


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Following is the definition for *Text*. If you *_do_* *_not_* agree
> that this definition is acceptable, please reply and state your
> reason. Please note that this text is now harmonized with WCAG.
>
>
> *Text*
>
>
>
> "Sequence of characters that is programmatically determinable, where
> the sequence is expressing something in human language."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>