Thread Subject: revision of 24(e)

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 7:40 AM
Subject: revision of 24(e)

On the last call I was given the task of clarifying the wording of
1194.24(e). i've uploaded my revision to the wiki, also pasted below
for convenience.

======
CURRENT:
Display or presentation of captions or audio descriptions shall be
user-selectable unless permanent.

REVISION:
A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on
and off shall be provided. If captions and descriptions are meant by
the author to be open-- that is, permanently visible or audible to
everyone-- a method for turning them on and off is not required.
======

Geoff/NCAM

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Much better wording.

Rather than having a second sentence that it an exception to the first, how
about

REVISION:
A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on and off
shall be provided unless captions and descriptions are meant by the author
to be open-- that is, permanently visible or audible to everyone.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff freed
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:36 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> On the last call I was given the task of clarifying the
> wording of 1194.24(e). i've uploaded my revision to the
> wiki, also pasted below for convenience.
>
> ======
> CURRENT:
> Display or presentation of captions or audio descriptions
> shall be user-selectable unless permanent.
>
> REVISION:
> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio
> descriptions on and off shall be provided. If captions and
> descriptions are meant by the author to be open-- that is,
> permanently visible or audible to
> everyone-- a method for turning them on and off is not required.
> ======
>
> Geoff/NCAM
>
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Thanks for this Geoff.

How about if we move the definition part into the Subpart A
Definitions section, so that the provision itself is shorter?
There would be a definition of both "open" and "closed" applies
to both captioning and audio description.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geoff freed [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:36 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> On the last call I was given the task of clarifying the
> wording of 1194.24(e). i've uploaded my revision to the
> wiki, also pasted below for convenience.
>
> ======
> CURRENT:
> Display or presentation of captions or audio descriptions
> shall be user-selectable unless permanent.
>
> REVISION:
> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio
> descriptions on and off shall be provided. If captions and
> descriptions are meant by the author to be open-- that is,
> permanently visible or audible to
> everyone-- a method for turning them on and off is not required.
> ======
>
> Geoff/NCAM
>
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Or how about:
A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on and
off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant by the
author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:28 AM
To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

Much better wording.

Rather than having a second sentence that it an exception to the first,
how about

REVISION:
A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on and
off shall be provided unless captions and descriptions are meant by the
author to be open-- that is, permanently visible or audible to everyone.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff freed
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:36 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> On the last call I was given the task of clarifying the wording of
> 1194.24(e). i've uploaded my revision to the wiki, also pasted below
> for convenience.
>
> ======
> CURRENT:
> Display or presentation of captions or audio descriptions shall be
> user-selectable unless permanent.
>
> REVISION:
> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on
> and off shall be provided. If captions and descriptions are meant by
> the author to be open-- that is, permanently visible or audible to
> everyone-- a method for turning them on and off is not required.
> ======
>
> Geoff/NCAM
>
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Thanks for this Geoff.

How about if we move the definition part into the Subpart A
Definitions section, so that the provision itself is shorter?
There would be a definition of both "open" and "closed" applies
to both captioning and audio description.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geoff freed [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:36 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> On the last call I was given the task of clarifying the
> wording of 1194.24(e). i've uploaded my revision to the
> wiki, also pasted below for convenience.
>
> ======
> CURRENT:
> Display or presentation of captions or audio descriptions
> shall be user-selectable unless permanent.
>
> REVISION:
> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio
> descriptions on and off shall be provided. If captions and
> descriptions are meant by the author to be open-- that is,
> permanently visible or audible to
> everyone-- a method for turning them on and off is not required.
> ======
>
> Geoff/NCAM
>
>

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

How about active voice:

The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or closed
audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
permanently visible or audible to everyone.

At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>Or how about:
>A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on and
>off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant by the
>author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>
>AWK


Whitney Quesenbery
Whitney Interactive Design
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
phone: 908-638-5467
mobile: 908-328-5959
www.WQusability.com
www.usabilityprofessionals.org

"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I like this one.



Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Whitney
Quesenbery
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:31 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

How about active voice:

The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or closed
audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
permanently visible or audible to everyone.

At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>Or how about:
>A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on
>and off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant by
>the author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>
>AWK


Whitney Quesenbery
Whitney Interactive Design
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
phone: 908-638-5467
mobile: 908-328-5959
www.WQusability.com
www.usabilityprofessionals.org

"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I'm concerned that "the system" will mean different things to
different people, so how about...

Authors shall provide a method for turning closed captions
or closed audio descriptions on and off unless captions or
descriptions are intended to be permanently visible or
audible to everyone.

Geoff



On Jan 3, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Whitney Quesenbery wrote:

> How about active voice:
>
> The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or
> closed
> audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
> permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>
> At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>> Or how about:
>> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions
>> on and
>> off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant by
>> the
>> author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>
>> AWK
>
>
> Whitney Quesenbery
> Whitney Interactive Design
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> phone: 908-638-5467
> mobile: 908-328-5959
> www.WQusability.com
> www.usabilityprofessionals.org
>
> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
>
>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I think that the language is mixing apples and oranges: the system and the
content. The proposed language ("The system shall provide a method for
turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on and off unless
captions or descriptions are
permanently visible or audible to everyone.") suggests that systems do not
need to be capable of allowing users to turn on and off closed captions and
audio descriptions if the captions or descriptions are intended to be
available to everyone. But the very definition of "closed" captions is that
they be capable of being turned on and off by the user. And to the best of
my knowledge, there is no term "closed audio descriptions."

The bottom line is that viewers must always be able to turn on and off
closed captions or audio descriptions that are not intended to be heard by
everyone. Qualifying this with the phrase "unless captions or descriptions
are permanently visable or audible to everyone" confuses the ability to
adjust these features on an audio/video product with the decision of an
author or producer to incorporate these access features permanently into the
content of the programming. The point here is that the producer or
programmer that supplies those access features have nothing to do with the
system transmitting and displaying these features.

Also, I am a little concerned about using the word "system" unless we have
defined that term. Should we use products instead? Finally, while the
original 24(e) talks about the user being able to make the selection, the
above language does not, and leaves open the possibility that the method for
turning on and off captions will be controlled by an external source. It
is very important to keep this in the hands of the user.

I propose the following, which is simple and gets to the point, even if it
is 2 sentences:

The product shall provide a method for the user to turn closed captions or
audio descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary in the event
that the captions or descriptions are permanently visible or audible to
everyone.

Karen




----- Original Message -----
From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)


>I like this one.
>
>
>
> Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Whitney
> Quesenbery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:31 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> How about active voice:
>
> The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or closed
> audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
> permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>
> At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>Or how about:
>>A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on
>>and off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant by
>>the author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>
>>AWK
>
>
> Whitney Quesenbery
> Whitney Interactive Design
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> phone: 908-638-5467
> mobile: 908-328-5959
> www.WQusability.com
> www.usabilityprofessionals.org
>
> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
>
>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

See my other message - the authors don't provide the method for turning on
and off captions. The products do.

----- Original Message -----
From: "geoff freed" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)


>
> I'm concerned that "the system" will mean different things to
> different people, so how about...
>
> Authors shall provide a method for turning closed captions
> or closed audio descriptions on and off unless captions or
> descriptions are intended to be permanently visible or
> audible to everyone.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Whitney Quesenbery wrote:
>
>> How about active voice:
>>
>> The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or
>> closed
>> audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
>> permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>
>> At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>> Or how about:
>>> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions
>>> on and
>>> off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant by
>>> the
>>> author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>>
>>> AWK
>>
>>
>> Whitney Quesenbery
>> Whitney Interactive Design
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> phone: 908-638-5467
>> mobile: 908-328-5959
>> www.WQusability.com
>> www.usabilityprofessionals.org
>>
>> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
>>
>>

From: tom Wlodkowski
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Authors definitely have a role here as well, particularly in the web
environment. Delivering open captions for a streaming video differs from the
closed caption approach in many cases.

Tom Wlodkowski
Director of Accessibility
AOL LLC
Phone: 703-265-1999
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Peltz Strauss" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)


> See my other message - the authors don't provide the method for turning on
> and off captions. The products do.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "geoff freed" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
>>
>> I'm concerned that "the system" will mean different things to
>> different people, so how about...
>>
>> Authors shall provide a method for turning closed captions
>> or closed audio descriptions on and off unless captions or
>> descriptions are intended to be permanently visible or
>> audible to everyone.
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Whitney Quesenbery wrote:
>>
>>> How about active voice:
>>>
>>> The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or
>>> closed
>>> audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
>>> permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>>
>>> At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>>> Or how about:
>>>> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions
>>>> on and
>>>> off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant by
>>>> the
>>>> author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>>>
>>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>> Whitney Quesenbery
>>> Whitney Interactive Design
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> phone: 908-638-5467
>>> mobile: 908-328-5959
>>> www.WQusability.com
>>> www.usabilityprofessionals.org
>>>
>>> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
>>>
>>>

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Agreed, its a two part story.
Authors need to provide the separate captions, audio, or whatever stream. The playback system needs to provide a way to turn them on and off.

Obviously if they are not in a spearate stream for a particular video the system can't turn them off; but it should still retain the capability.

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

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

It is a two part story, but the parts are not so clearly defined.
Sometimes the author needs to add the control that enables/disables the
cc/ad, sometimes the user agent playing the media handles this. We
should allow it to occur either way.

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Sean Hayes
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:00 PM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

Agreed, its a two part story.
Authors need to provide the separate captions, audio, or whatever
stream. The playback system needs to provide a way to turn them on and
off.

Obviously if they are not in a spearate stream for a particular video
the system can't turn them off; but it should still retain the
capability.

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

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Hi, Karen:

A few comments in-line.

On Jan 3, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Karen Peltz Strauss wrote:

> I think that the language is mixing apples and oranges: the system
> and the
> content. The proposed language ("The system shall provide a method
> for
> turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on and off unless
> captions or descriptions are
> permanently visible or audible to everyone.") suggests that systems
> do not
> need to be capable of allowing users to turn on and off closed
> captions and
> audio descriptions if the captions or descriptions are intended to be
> available to everyone. But the very definition of "closed"
> captions is that
> they be capable of being turned on and off by the user. And to the
> best of
> my knowledge, there is no term "closed audio descriptions."

Actually, there is. "Closed audio descriptions" is used the same way
as "closed captions"-- to differentiate from the open kind-- although
"closed descriptions" is also used. I'd prefer to use the longer
form for clarity.

>
> The bottom line is that viewers must always be able to turn on and off
> closed captions or audio descriptions that are not intended to be
> heard by
> everyone. Qualifying this with the phrase "unless captions or
> descriptions
> are permanently visable or audible to everyone" confuses the
> ability to
> adjust these features on an audio/video product with the decision
> of an
> author or producer to incorporate these access features permanently
> into the
> content of the programming. The point here is that the producer or
> programmer that supplies those access features have nothing to do
> with the
> system transmitting and displaying these features.

Not necessarily. In all approaches (SMIL, SAMI, embedded tracks) the
author has control over display characteristics, display placement
and, in some cases, can provide a simple interface, such as a button,
to toggle the captions or descriptions. Authors can also rely on the
player's native toggling features, usually found in menus. In any
case, authors have to not only supply the captions or descriptions,
but also some special information (such as an attribute in a SMIL
file or an embedded track in a QuickTime movie) to actually make the
captions or descriptions visible or invisible. It really *is* the
author's responsibility.


>
> Also, I am a little concerned about using the word "system" unless
> we have
> defined that term. Should we use products instead? Finally, while
> the
> original 24(e) talks about the user being able to make the
> selection, the
> above language does not, and leaves open the possibility that the
> method for
> turning on and off captions will be controlled by an external
> source. It
> is very important to keep this in the hands of the user.
>
> I propose the following, which is simple and gets to the point,
> even if it
> is 2 sentences:
>
> The product shall provide a method for the user to turn closed
> captions or
> audio descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary in the
> event
> that the captions or descriptions are permanently visible or
> audible to
> everyone.
>

I like the two-sentence approach but "the product" still sounds
confusing to me: is it the player or the actual clip that is being
played? Authors are responsible for making the captions and
descriptions work properly regardless of how these features are
supported by playback applications. I'd be happier if it began
"Authors shall provide a method..."

Geoff



> Karen
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
>> I like this one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Whitney
>> Quesenbery
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:31 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> How about active voice:
>>
>> The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or
>> closed
>> audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
>> permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>
>> At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>> Or how about:
>>> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on
>>> and off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are
>>> meant by
>>> the author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>>
>>> AWK
>>
>>
>> Whitney Quesenbery
>> Whitney Interactive Design
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> phone: 908-638-5467
>> mobile: 908-328-5959
>> www.WQusability.com
>> www.usabilityprofessionals.org
>>
>> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
>>
>>

From: Dave Singer
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Audio descriptions and captions must be either (a) permanently
presented to all recipients ("open") or (b) capable of being turned
on and off by each individual recipient ("closed").


At 12:02 -0500 3/01/07, Karen Peltz Strauss wrote:
>I think that the language is mixing apples and oranges: the system and the
>content. The proposed language ("The system shall provide a method for
>turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on and off unless
>captions or descriptions are
>permanently visible or audible to everyone.") suggests that systems do not
>need to be capable of allowing users to turn on and off closed captions and
>audio descriptions if the captions or descriptions are intended to be
>available to everyone. But the very definition of "closed" captions is that
>they be capable of being turned on and off by the user. And to the best of
>my knowledge, there is no term "closed audio descriptions."
>
>The bottom line is that viewers must always be able to turn on and off
>closed captions or audio descriptions that are not intended to be heard by
>everyone. Qualifying this with the phrase "unless captions or descriptions
>are permanently visable or audible to everyone" confuses the ability to
>adjust these features on an audio/video product with the decision of an
>author or producer to incorporate these access features permanently into the
>content of the programming. The point here is that the producer or
>programmer that supplies those access features have nothing to do with the
>system transmitting and displaying these features.
>
>Also, I am a little concerned about using the word "system" unless we have
>defined that term. Should we use products instead? Finally, while the
>original 24(e) talks about the user being able to make the selection, the
>above language does not, and leaves open the possibility that the method for
>turning on and off captions will be controlled by an external source. It
>is very important to keep this in the hands of the user.
>
>I propose the following, which is simple and gets to the point, even if it
>is 2 sentences:
>
>The product shall provide a method for the user to turn closed captions or
>audio descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary in the event
>that the captions or descriptions are permanently visible or audible to
>everyone.
>
>Karen
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
>>I like this one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Whitney
>> Quesenbery
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:31 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> How about active voice:
>>
>> The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or closed
>> audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
>> permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>
>> At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>>Or how about:
>>>A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on
>>>and off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant by
>>>the author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>>
>>>AWK
>>
>>
>> Whitney Quesenbery
>> Whitney Interactive Design
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> phone: 908-638-5467
>> mobile: 908-328-5959
>> www.WQusability.com
>> www.usabilityprofessionals.org
>>
>> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
>>
>>

From: Baronas, Jean
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Suggest that the "service" be designated.
Thanks,
Jean Baronas

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:59 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

Audio descriptions and captions must be either (a) permanently
presented to all recipients ("open") or (b) capable of being turned
on and off by each individual recipient ("closed").


At 12:02 -0500 3/01/07, Karen Peltz Strauss wrote:
>I think that the language is mixing apples and oranges: the system and
the
>content. The proposed language ("The system shall provide a method for
>turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on and off unless
>captions or descriptions are
>permanently visible or audible to everyone.") suggests that systems do
not
>need to be capable of allowing users to turn on and off closed captions
and
>audio descriptions if the captions or descriptions are intended to be
>available to everyone. But the very definition of "closed" captions is
that
>they be capable of being turned on and off by the user. And to the
best of
>my knowledge, there is no term "closed audio descriptions."
>
>The bottom line is that viewers must always be able to turn on and off
>closed captions or audio descriptions that are not intended to be heard
by
>everyone. Qualifying this with the phrase "unless captions or
descriptions
>are permanently visable or audible to everyone" confuses the ability to
>adjust these features on an audio/video product with the decision of an
>author or producer to incorporate these access features permanently
into the
>content of the programming. The point here is that the producer or
>programmer that supplies those access features have nothing to do with
the
>system transmitting and displaying these features.
>
>Also, I am a little concerned about using the word "system" unless we
have
>defined that term. Should we use products instead? Finally, while the
>original 24(e) talks about the user being able to make the selection,
the
>above language does not, and leaves open the possibility that the
method for
>turning on and off captions will be controlled by an external source.
It
>is very important to keep this in the hands of the user.
>
>I propose the following, which is simple and gets to the point, even if
it
>is 2 sentences:
>
>The product shall provide a method for the user to turn closed captions
or
>audio descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary in the
event
>that the captions or descriptions are permanently visible or audible to
>everyone.
>
>Karen
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
>>I like this one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Whitney
>> Quesenbery
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:31 AM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> How about active voice:
>>
>> The system shall provide a method for turning closed captions or
closed
>> audio descriptions on and off unless captions or descriptions are
>> permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>
>> At 10:37 AM 1/3/2007, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>>Or how about:
>>>A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on
>>>and off shall be provided unless captions or descriptions are meant
by
>>>the author to be permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>>
>>>AWK
>>
>>
>> Whitney Quesenbery
>> Whitney Interactive Design
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> phone: 908-638-5467
>> mobile: 908-328-5959
>> www.WQusability.com
>> www.usabilityprofessionals.org
>>
>> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
>>
>>

From: Dave Singer
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
"available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
service, buy this tool, and then ...').

The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
presented without user intervention.

The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
not be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
program material ('you don't need a special television').
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Here's another way to skin this:

Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio
descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent

Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
(respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
exists.


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
"available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
service, buy this tool, and then ...').

The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
presented without user intervention.

The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should not
be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
program material ('you don't need a special television').
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words that
people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," " audible
or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ... exists."

Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of end-user
requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an implementation of
closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!) to the developer but
which requires a specific browser of a specific version, with a specific
plug-in or set of plug-ins.

Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
open-described...

[just kidding] [sort of]

- Larry


Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:

> Here's another way to skin this:
>
> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio
> descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>
> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
> exists.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>
> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
> presented without user intervention.
>
> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should not
> be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
> program material ('you don't need a special television').
> --
> David Singer
> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I'm not invested in the language (although people understand
"equivalents" I think) - what do you think about it being flipped to say
effectively:
"cc/ad should be on when the user opens the media, unless there is an
easy way to turn them on"?

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:00 PM
To: TEITAC AV list
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
that people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," "
audible or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ...
exists."

Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
end-user requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an
implementation of closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!)
to the developer but which requires a specific browser of a specific
version, with a specific plug-in or set of plug-ins.

Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
open-described...

[just kidding] [sort of]

- Larry


Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:

> Here's another way to skin this:
>
> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
> audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>
> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
> exists.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>
> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
> presented without user intervention.
>
> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
> not be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
> program material ('you don't need a special television').
> --
> David Singer
> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>

From: Baronas, Jean
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

How's this:

Original: Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
audio
> descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent

Revision: The user shall have the option to turn on and off text
presentation or audio descriptions.

Jean Baronas



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:00 PM
To: TEITAC AV list
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
that
people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," "
audible
or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ... exists."

Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
end-user
requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an implementation
of
closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!) to the developer
but
which requires a specific browser of a specific version, with a specific
plug-in or set of plug-ins.

Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
open-described...

[just kidding] [sort of]

- Larry


Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:

> Here's another way to skin this:
>
> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
audio
> descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>
> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
> exists.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>
> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
> presented without user intervention.
>
> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
not
> be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
> program material ('you don't need a special television').
> --
> David Singer
> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Revision: The user shall have the option to turn on and off text
presentation or audio descriptions.

I can't agree with this one - open captioning has its place, and in the
case of some media (e.g. VHS) there is no way to turn off descriptions.

AWK




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:00 PM
To: TEITAC AV list
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
that people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," "
audible
or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ... exists."

Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
end-user requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an
implementation of closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!)
to the developer but which requires a specific browser of a specific
version, with a specific plug-in or set of plug-ins.

Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
open-described...

[just kidding] [sort of]

- Larry


Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:

> Here's another way to skin this:
>
> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
audio
> descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>
> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
> exists.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>
> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
> presented without user intervention.
>
> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
not
> be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
> program material ('you don't need a special television').
> --
> David Singer
> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

How about this - it is simple and to the point:

A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions or audio
descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary when captions or
descriptions are permanently visible or audible to everyone.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)


> I'm not invested in the language (although people understand
> "equivalents" I think) - what do you think about it being flipped to say
> effectively:
> "cc/ad should be on when the user opens the media, unless there is an
> easy way to turn them on"?
>
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:00 PM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
> that people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," "
> audible or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ...
> exists."
>
> Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
> end-user requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an
> implementation of closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!)
> to the developer but which requires a specific browser of a specific
> version, with a specific plug-in or set of plug-ins.
>
> Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
> open-described...
>
> [just kidding] [sort of]
>
> - Larry
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>> Here's another way to skin this:
>>
>> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>> audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>
>> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
>> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
>> exists.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
>> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
>> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
>> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>>
>> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
>> presented without user intervention.
>>
>> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
>> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
>> not be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
>> program material ('you don't need a special television').
>> --
>> David Singer
>> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>>

From: Jim House (TDI)
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

ORIGINAL: Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent

REVISED: The user shall have the ability to instantly turn on alternate caption display and/or audio description unless configured by author to be permanently "on".

RATIONALE: The user will see one of two things.

1. A closed captioned content with a label (text or graphic) prominently displayed where the user will turn on the captions.
2. Or an open captioned content where the user does not have to do anything except enjoy the content.

Adding a couple more points here...

A. "Off" is really a moot point because when you finish the video, you would close the window (which I think does away with someone's concern about "burn-in" from leaving any logo on the monitor too long).

B. Some applications like Quick Time or Windows Media allow the user to preselect captioning as a default setting if available so because it is preselected, the user will not have to take further action if the set-up is configured right.

Jim House
TDI



Baronas, Jean wrote:
> How's this:
>
> Original: Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
> audio
>
>> descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>
>
> Revision: The user shall have the option to turn on and off text
> presentation or audio descriptions.
>
> Jean Baronas
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:00 PM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
> that
> people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," "
> audible
> or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ... exists."
>
> Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
> end-user
> requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an implementation
> of
> closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!) to the developer
> but
> which requires a specific browser of a specific version, with a specific
> plug-in or set of plug-ins.
>
> Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
> open-described...
>
> [just kidding] [sort of]
>
> - Larry
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>
>> Here's another way to skin this:
>>
>> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>>
> audio
>
>> descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>
>> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
>> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
>> exists.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
>> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
>> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
>> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>>
>> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
>> presented without user intervention.
>>
>> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
>> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
>>
> not
>
>> be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
>> program material ('you don't need a special television').
>> --
>> David Singer
>> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions or audio
descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary when captions or
descriptions are permanently visible or audible to everyone.

What if the 'equivalent' is a text transcript for an audio file? Is
that a separate question?

AWK

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

This seems to me like another accessibility value chain example:

1. The content must contain both captioning and audio description, either
open
or closed, at the author's discretion.
2. The device/product/system on which the content is being "played" must
recognize
the presence of closed captioning and/or audio description, and provide a
method
for the user to control the captioning and description.

So two parties are burdened here. There may be others in the chain as well,
if the
content is on a server, and the player is a browser plugin, etc.

Now, I have a question. So far we've been looking at captioning and audio
description
as boolean -- they're either there or not, or on or not. But aren't both of
these alternate
formats undergoing evolution, with other options such as screen location,
font, etc.
potentially controllable by users? If we want to update the standards,
shouldn't we
add some reference to these characteristics?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Peltz Strauss [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> How about this - it is simple and to the point:
>
> A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions or
> audio descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary
> when captions or descriptions are permanently visible or
> audible to everyone.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> > I'm not invested in the language (although people understand
> > "equivalents" I think) - what do you think about it being
> flipped to say
> > effectively:
> > "cc/ad should be on when the user opens the media, unless
> there is an
> > easy way to turn them on"?
> >
> > AWK
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> > Goldberg
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:00 PM
> > To: TEITAC AV list
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
> >
> > I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms
> and words
> > that people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. "
> Equivalents," "
> > audible or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a
> mechanism ...
> > exists."
> >
> > Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
> > end-user requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an
> > implementation of closed captioning that seems facile (and
> even cool!)
> > to the developer but which requires a specific browser of a specific
> > version, with a specific plug-in or set of plug-ins.
> >
> > Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
> > open-described...
> >
> > [just kidding] [sort of]
> >
> > - Larry
> >
> >
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> >
> >> Here's another way to skin this:
> >>
> >> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
> >> audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
> >>
> >> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible
> or visible
> >> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
> >> exists.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Dave Singer
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
> >> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
> >>
> >> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
> >> "available to everyone" is that the definition of
> "available" is very
> >> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for
> this premium
> >> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
> >>
> >> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
> >> presented without user intervention.
> >>
> >> The other comment I made was that this should say
> something about the
> >> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
> >> not be materially different or more onerous than to
> recieve the basic
> >> program material ('you don't need a special television').
> >> --
> >> David Singer
> >> Apple Computer/QuickTime
> >>

From: Dave Singer
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

At 14:23 -0800 3/01/07, Baronas, Jean wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C72F85.DA0AF7FA"
>
>I'm OK with this too.
>Jean Baronas

'instantly' has a large iceberg lurking beneath it. Text captions
arrive periodically, for example. Does this mean I must decode them
all, so that the user can instantly see the current one, or is it OK
if I start receiving and decoding when the user requests (and nothing
will show until the next caption arrives)?

What about network latency in requesting a new audio stream?

>
>
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim House
>(TDI)
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:21 PM
>To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>Cc: Claude Stout
>Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>ORIGINAL: Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>
>REVISED: The user shall have the ability to instantly turn on
>alternate caption display and/or audio description unless configured
>by author to be permanently "on".
>
>RATIONALE: The user will see one of two things.
>
>1. A closed captioned content with a label (text or graphic)
>prominently displayed where the user will turn on the captions.
>2. Or an open captioned content where the user does not have to do
>anything except enjoy the content.
>
>Adding a couple more points here...
>
>A. "Off" is really a moot point because when you finish the video,
>you would close the window (which I think does away with someone's
>concern about "burn-in" from leaving any logo on the monitor too
>long).
>
>B. Some applications like Quick Time or Windows Media allow the user
>to preselect captioning as a default setting if available so because
>it is preselected, the user will not have to take further action if
>the set-up is configured right.
>
>Jim House
>TDI
>
>
>Baronas, Jean wrote:
>
>How's this:
>
>Original: Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>audio
>
>
>>descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>
>>
>
>Revision: The user shall have the option to turn on and off text
>presentation or audio descriptions.
>
>Jean Baronas
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
><mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>On Behalf Of Larry
>Goldberg
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:00 PM
>To: TEITAC AV list
>Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
>that
>people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," "
>audible
>or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ... exists."
>
>Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
>end-user
>requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an implementation
>of
>closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!) to the developer
>but
>which requires a specific browser of a specific version, with a specific
>plug-in or set of plug-ins.
>
>Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
>open-described...
>
>[just kidding] [sort of]
>
>- Larry
>
>
>Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
>>Here's another way to skin this:
>>
>>Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>>
>>
>audio
>
>
>>descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>
>>Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
>>(respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
>>exists.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:
>><mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>[<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>On Behalf Of Dave Singer
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
>>To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>>Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>>The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
>>"available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
>>vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
>>service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>>
>>The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
>>presented without user intervention.
>>
>>The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
>>end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
>>
>>
>not
>
>
>>be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
>>program material ('you don't need a special television').
>>--
>>David Singer
>>Apple Computer/QuickTime
>>

From: Baronas, Jean
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I'm OK with this too.

Jean Baronas

From: Dave Singer
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

At 17:22 -0500 3/01/07, Karen Peltz Strauss wrote:
>How about this - it is simple and to the point:
>
>A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions or audio
>descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary when captions or
>descriptions are permanently visible or audible to everyone.

pretty well where we were before, no?

"Audio descriptions and captions must be either (a) permanently
presented to all recipients ("open") or (b) capable of being turned
on and off by each individual recipient ("closed")."

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
>> I'm not invested in the language (although people understand
>> "equivalents" I think) - what do you think about it being flipped to say
>> effectively:
>> "cc/ad should be on when the user opens the media, unless there is an
>> easy way to turn them on"?
>>
>> AWK
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>> Goldberg
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:00 PM
>> To: TEITAC AV list
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
>> that people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," "
>> audible or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ...
>> exists."
>>
>> Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
>> end-user requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an
>> implementation of closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!)
>> to the developer but which requires a specific browser of a specific
>> version, with a specific plug-in or set of plug-ins.
>>
>> Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
>> open-described...
>>
>> [just kidding] [sort of]
>>
>> - Larry
>>
>>
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>
>>> Here's another way to skin this:
>>>
>>> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>>> audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>>
>>> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
>>> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
>>> exists.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>>
>>> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
>>> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
>>> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
>>> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>>>
>>> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
>>> presented without user intervention.
>>>
>>> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
>>> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
>>> not be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
>>> program material ('you don't need a special television').
>>> --
>>> David Singer
>>> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>>>

From: Baronas, Jean
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

OK with me, Jean Baronas

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:22 PM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

How about this - it is simple and to the point:

A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions or audio
descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary when captions or
descriptions are permanently visible or audible to everyone.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)


> I'm not invested in the language (although people understand
> "equivalents" I think) - what do you think about it being flipped to
say
> effectively:
> "cc/ad should be on when the user opens the media, unless there is an
> easy way to turn them on"?
>
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
> Goldberg
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:00 PM
> To: TEITAC AV list
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
> that people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents,"
"
> audible or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism
...
> exists."
>
> Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
> end-user requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an
> implementation of closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!)
> to the developer but which requires a specific browser of a specific
> version, with a specific plug-in or set of plug-ins.
>
> Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
> open-described...
>
> [just kidding] [sort of]
>
> - Larry
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>> Here's another way to skin this:
>>
>> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>> audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>
>> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
>> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
>> exists.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave
Singer
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
>> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
>> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
>> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>>
>> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
>> presented without user intervention.
>>
>> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
>> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
>> not be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
>> program material ('you don't need a special television').
>> --
>> David Singer
>> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>>

From: geoff freed
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:26 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions or
> audio descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary
> when captions or descriptions are permanently visible or
> audible to everyone.
>
> What if the 'equivalent' is a text transcript for an audio
> file? Is that a separate question?

I think it is. On the wiki we've already discussed how 24(c) and (d) should
specify synchronized alternatives (that is, captions and descriptions). it
makes sense to me that 24(e) continue this line of thinking by specifying
captions and audio descriptions, not transcripts. however, perhaps we can
add a new clause-- say, 24(f)-- that allows a transcript where appropriate
(the no-time-base example discussed on the wiki) OR as a way to augment, but
not replace, captions or descriptions.

Geoff



>
> AWK
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I like this proposal. It might need a bbit of clarity though in
order to satisfy clear language targets.

On Jan 3, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:

Here's another way to skin this:

Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or audio
descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent

Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
(respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
exists.


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
"available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
service, buy this tool, and then ...').

The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
presented without user intervention.

The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should not
be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
program material ('you don't need a special television').
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

having read from newest too oldest, I was headed for this one. I had
ttrouble with system and author. This is well with in the functional
zone and is clear and to the point.

On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Much better wording.

Rather than having a second sentence that it an exception to the
first, how
about

REVISION:
A method for turning closed captions or closed audio descriptions on
and off
shall be provided unless captions and descriptions are meant by the
author
to be open-- that is, permanently visible or audible to everyone.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff freed
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:36 AM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> On the last call I was given the task of clarifying the
> wording of 1194.24(e). i've uploaded my revision to the
> wiki, also pasted below for convenience.
>
> ======
> CURRENT:
> Display or presentation of captions or audio descriptions
> shall be user-selectable unless permanent.
>
> REVISION:
> A method for turning closed captions or closed audio
> descriptions on and off shall be provided. If captions and
> descriptions are meant by the author to be open-- that is,
> permanently visible or audible to
> everyone-- a method for turning them on and off is not required.
> ======
>
> Geoff/NCAM
>
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

> This seems to me like another accessibility value chain example:
>
> 1. The content must contain both captioning and audio description,
either open or closed, at the author's discretion.
> 2. The device/product/system on which the content is being "played"
must recognize the presence of closed captioning and/or audio
description, and
> provide a method for the user to control the captioning and
description.
>
> So two parties are burdened here. There may be others in the chain as
well, if the content is on a server, and the player is a browser plugin,
etc.

Jim, two parties are not always burdened. Sometimes the content is the
system, as in QT and some Flash examples - there may be others.

> Now, I have a question. So far we've been looking at captioning and
audio description as boolean -- they're either there or not, or on or
not. But
> aren't both of these alternate formats undergoing evolution, with
other options such as screen location, font, etc.
> potentially controllable by users? If we want to update the
standards, shouldn't we add some reference to these characteristics?

This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others with more
difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen any time soon.
AWK

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

In WCAG we allow a full collated text version of the multimedia as an
alternative. Works better for training videos where there is constant
talking and important visual information. Audio description won't work.
And it also works for people who are deaf-blind.

But for movies and movie watching experience AD is much superior.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff freed
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 6:17 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
> > Kirkpatrick
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:26 PM
> > To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
> >
> > A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions or audio
> > descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary when
> captions or
> > descriptions are permanently visible or audible to everyone.
> >
> > What if the 'equivalent' is a text transcript for an audio
> file? Is
> > that a separate question?
>
> I think it is. On the wiki we've already discussed how 24(c)
> and (d) should specify synchronized alternatives (that is,
> captions and descriptions). it makes sense to me that 24(e)
> continue this line of thinking by specifying captions and
> audio descriptions, not transcripts. however, perhaps we can
> add a new clause-- say, 24(f)-- that allows a transcript
> where appropriate (the no-time-base example discussed on the
> wiki) OR as a way to augment, but not replace, captions or
> descriptions.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> >
> > AWK
> >

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Can you define, " full collated text version "? - I have a sense of what
you're talking about, but it would be good to know directly what the WCAG
means by this.

- Larry



Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> In WCAG we allow a full collated text version of the multimedia as an
> alternative. Works better for training videos where there is constant
> talking and important visual information. Audio description won't work.
> And it also works for people who are deaf-blind.
>
> But for movies and movie watching experience AD is much superior.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff freed
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 6:17 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
>>> Kirkpatrick
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:26 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>>
>>> A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions or audio
>>> descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary when
>> captions or
>>> descriptions are permanently visible or audible to everyone.
>>>
>>> What if the 'equivalent' is a text transcript for an audio
>> file? Is
>>> that a separate question?
>>
>> I think it is. On the wiki we've already discussed how 24(c)
>> and (d) should specify synchronized alternatives (that is,
>> captions and descriptions). it makes sense to me that 24(e)
>> continue this line of thinking by specifying captions and
>> audio descriptions, not transcripts. however, perhaps we can
>> add a new clause-- say, 24(f)-- that allows a transcript
>> where appropriate (the no-time-base example discussed on the
>> wiki) OR as a way to augment, but not replace, captions or
>> descriptions.
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Hi Larry



Sorry, I was using the old term. Here is the term we now use and its
definition. Also some info from our Understanding WCAG doc on this topic.





1.2.2 Audio Desc. or Full Text Alt:
Audio description <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#audiodescdef> of video,
or a <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#fullmultaltdef> full text
alternative for multimedia including any interaction , is provided for
prerecorded multimedia <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#multimediadef> .

Note: For 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.7, if all of the information in the video
track is already provided in the audio track, no audio description is
necessary.




full text alternative for multimedia including any interaction


document including correctly sequenced descriptions of all visual
settings, actions, and non-speech sounds combined with descriptive
transcripts of all dialogue and a means of achieving any outcomes that are
achieved using interaction during the multimedia

Note: A screenplay used to create the multimedia content would meet this
definition only if it was corrected to accurately represent the final
multimedia after editing.






Intent of this success criterion


The intent of this success criterion is to provide people who are blind or
visually impaired access to the visual information in a multimedia
presentation. This success criterion describes two approaches, either of
which can be used.

One approach is to provide audio description of the video content. The audio
description augments the audio portion of the presentation with the
information needed when the video portion is not available. During existing
pauses in dialogue, audio description provides information about actions,
characters, scene changes, and on-screen text that are important and are not
described or spoken in the main sound track.

The second approach involves providing all of the information in the
multimedia (both visual and auditory) in text form. A full text alternative
for multimedia including any interaction provides a running description of
all that is going on in the multimedia content. The full text alternative
for multimedia including any interaction reads something like a screenplay
or book. Unlike audio description, the description of the video portion are
not constrained to just the pauses in the existing dialogue. Full
descriptions are provided of all visual information, including visual
context, actions and expressions of actors, and any other visual material.
In addition, non-speech sounds (laughter, off-screen voices, etc.) are
described, and transcripts of all dialogue are included. The sequence of
description and dialogue transcripts are the same as the sequence in the
multimedia itself. As a result, the full text alternative for multimedia can
provide a much more complete representation of the multimedia content than
audio description alone.

If there is any interaction as part of the multimedia presentation (e.g.
"press now to answer the question") then the full text alternative for
multimedia would provide hyperlinks or whatever is needed to provide
parallel functionality.

Note: For [this success criterion], if all of the information in the video
track is already provided in the audio track, no audio description is
necessary.









Gregg

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

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.







> -----Original Message-----

> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of

> Larry Goldberg

> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:27 AM

> To: TEITAC AV list

> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

>

> Can you define, " full collated text version "? - I have a

> sense of what you're talking about, but it would be good to

> know directly what the WCAG means by this.

>

> - Larry

>

>

>

> Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

>

> > In WCAG we allow a full collated text version of the

> multimedia as an

> > alternative. Works better for training videos where there

> is constant

> > talking and important visual information. Audio

> description won't work.

> > And it also works for people who are deaf-blind.

> >

> > But for movies and movie watching experience AD is much superior.

> >

> >

> > Gregg

> > -- ------------------------------

> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.

> >

> >

> >

> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of geoff

> >> freed

> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 6:17 PM

> >> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'

> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

> >>

> >>

> >>> -----Original Message-----

> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew

> >>> Kirkpatrick

> >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:26 PM

> >>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee

> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

> >>>

> >>> A method shall exist for the user to turn closed captions

> or audio

> >>> descriptions on and off. This shall not be necessary when

> >> captions or

> >>> descriptions are permanently visible or audible to everyone.

> >>>

> >>> What if the 'equivalent' is a text transcript for an audio

> >> file? Is

> >>> that a separate question?

> >>

> >> I think it is. On the wiki we've already discussed how

> 24(c) and (d)

> >> should specify synchronized alternatives (that is, captions and

> >> descriptions). it makes sense to me that 24(e) continue

> this line of

> >> thinking by specifying captions and audio descriptions, not

> >> transcripts. however, perhaps we can add a new clause--

> say, 24(f)--

> >> that allows a transcript where appropriate (the

> no-time-base example

> >> discussed on the

> >> wiki) OR as a way to augment, but not replace, captions or

> >> descriptions.

> >>

> >> Geoff

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>>

> >>> AWK

> >>>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

This actually doesn't require them - just that any that are be permanent or
user selectable.

We might want to combine the two thoughts.

Require them and require that they be perm or user selectable (in one
guideline)


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> Here's another way to skin this:
>
> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text
> presentation or audio descriptions shall be user-selectable
> unless permanent
>
> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the
> display exists.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something
> like "available to everyone" is that the definition of
> "available" is very vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just
> need to pay for this premium service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>
> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream
> be presented without user intervention.
>
> The other comment I made was that this should say something
> about the end-user requirements to be able to turn captions
> on and off should not be materially different or more onerous
> than to recieve the basic program material ('you don't need a
> special television').
> --
> David Singer
> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

We've been thinking that the requirement piece needs to be longer and
more fleshed out, so hadn't considered combining c/d with e as a result.
Please check out the proposed revisions and let us know if you still
think that combining these makes sense.

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:01 AM
To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

This actually doesn't require them - just that any that are be permanent
or user selectable.

We might want to combine the two thoughts.

Require them and require that they be perm or user selectable (in one
guideline)


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> Here's another way to skin this:
>
> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
> audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>
> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
> exists.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>
> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
> presented without user intervention.
>
> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
> not be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
> program material ('you don't need a special television').
> --
> David Singer
> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:00 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> > This seems to me like another accessibility value chain example:
> >
> > 1. The content must contain both captioning and audio description,
> either open or closed, at the author's discretion.
> > 2. The device/product/system on which the content is being "played"
> must recognize the presence of closed captioning and/or audio
> description, and
> > provide a method for the user to control the captioning and
> description.
> >
> > So two parties are burdened here. There may be others in
> the chain as
> well, if the content is on a server, and the player is a
> browser plugin, etc.
>
> Jim, two parties are not always burdened. Sometimes the
> content is the system, as in QT and some Flash examples -
> there may be others.

But don't the underlying QT and Flash platforms contain the
accessibility capabilities such as captioning, description,
keyboard navigation/control, etc.? It's then the author's
job to use these capabilities. Am I missing something?

> > Now, I have a question. So far we've been looking at captioning and
> audio description as boolean -- they're either there or not,
> or on or not. But
> > aren't both of these alternate formats undergoing evolution, with
> other options such as screen location, font, etc.
> > potentially controllable by users? If we want to update the
> standards, shouldn't we add some reference to these characteristics?
>
> This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others
> with more difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen
> any time soon.

Thanks for the promo ;-)
Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
advanced captioning and audio description features that would require
more than an on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking
about broadcast, recorded, and web-based....

From: Jim House (TDI)
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Let me clarify what I meant by "instantly"

I am referring to the ease of finding the captioning control. Suppose I
am using a computer in the library. This library (or any public)
computer would most likely not be configured to show captioning when
available. I would not want to spend a lot of time trying to find the
captioning button just to see a three-minute video with captions. This
would be equivalent to having an easily accessible "CC" button on your
hotel TV remote rather than having to change a menu item three layers deep.

Now - as for captioning arriving to my monitor or latency issues, I
would want to see the captions as soon as the words are spoken and that
should be a reasonable goal, but it wasn't the intent of my using
"instantly" in this case. More like having the CC control easily
accessible.

Jim

Dave Singer wrote:
> At 14:23 -0800 3/01/07, Baronas, Jean wrote:
>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C72F85.DA0AF7FA"
>> I'm OK with this too.
>> Jean Baronas
>
> 'instantly' has a large iceberg lurking beneath it. Text captions
> arrive periodically, for example. Does this mean I must decode them
> all, so that the user can instantly see the current one, or is it OK
> if I start receiving and decoding when the user requests (and nothing
> will show until the next caption arrives)?
>
> What about network latency in requesting a new audio stream?
>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]* On Behalf Of* Jim
>> House (TDI)
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:21 PM
>> *To:* TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> *Cc:* Claude Stout
>> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> ORIGINAL: Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>> audio descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>
>> REVISED: The user shall have the ability to instantly turn on
>> alternate caption display and/or audio description unless configured
>> by author to be permanently "on".
>>
>> RATIONALE: The user will see one of two things.
>>
>> 1. A closed captioned content with a label (text or graphic)
>> prominently displayed where the user will turn on the captions.
>> 2. Or an open captioned content where the user does not have to do
>> anything except enjoy the content.
>>
>> Adding a couple more points here...
>>
>> A. "Off" is really a moot point because when you finish the video,
>> you would close the window (which I think does away with someone's
>> concern about "burn-in" from leaving any logo on the monitor too long).
>>
>> B. Some applications like Quick Time or Windows Media allow the user
>> to preselect captioning as a default setting if available so because
>> it is preselected, the user will not have to take further action if
>> the set-up is configured right.
>>
>> Jim House
>> TDI
>>
>>
>> Baronas, Jean wrote:
>>
>> How's this:
>>
>> Original: Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>> audio
>>
>>> descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>>
>>
>> Revision: The user shall have the option to turn on and off text
>> presentation or audio descriptions.
>>
>> Jean Baronas
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
>> Goldberg
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:00 PM
>> To: TEITAC AV list
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>> I fear that this new verbiage introduces too many new terms and words
>> that
>> people aren't used to and won't understand; i.e. " Equivalents," "
>> audible
>> or visible (respectively) by default," " unless a mechanism ... exists."
>>
>> Also, I feel we need to address Dave's point about equal level of
>> end-user
>> requirements to gain access. It's very easy to imagine an implementation
>> of
>> closed captioning that seems facile (and even cool!) to the developer
>> but
>> which requires a specific browser of a specific version, with a specific
>> plug-in or set of plug-ins.
>>
>> Maybe we should just require that all video be open-captioned and
>> open-described...
>>
>> [just kidding] [sort of]
>>
>> - Larry
>>
>>
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Here's another way to skin this:
>>>
>>> Original:Display or presentation of alternate text presentation or
>>>
>> audio
>>
>>> descriptions shall be user-selectable unless permanent
>>>
>>> Proposed: Equivalents for video and audio shall be audible or visible
>>> (respectively) by default, unless a mechanism to enable the display
>>> exists.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Dave Singer
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:59 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>>
>>> The problem with removing "permanent" and saying something like
>>> "available to everyone" is that the definition of "available" is very
>>> vague ('oh yes, it's available, you just need to pay for this premium
>>> service, buy this tool, and then ...').
>>>
>>> The intent is that the entire caption stream or audio stream be
>>> presented without user intervention.
>>>
>>> The other comment I made was that this should say something about the
>>> end-user requirements to be able to turn captions on and off should
>>>
>> not
>>
>>> be materially different or more onerous than to recieve the basic
>>> program material ('you don't need a special television').
>>> --
>>> David Singer
>>> Apple Computer/QuickTime
>>>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

> But don't the underlying QT and Flash platforms contain the
accessibility capabilities such as captioning, description, keyboard
navigation/control,
> etc.? It's then the author's job to use these capabilities. Am I
missing something?

Flash and QT know about putting text on the screen, but not specifically
about captioning. In the case of Flash, there is the ability to parse
XML and a developer can write a script that links the display of the
data that is parsed to the timeline of a particular piece of media being
displayed in the same flash application, but there is no innate
knowledge of "captioning". QT handles more of this automatically since
it has an internalized process to parse and display a text file with
timecode and text information, but it is up to the developer to make the
captions display or not display - there is no persistent setting for
caption display, and QT doesn't know whether the text track being
displayed is a stock ticker or captions.

Real does a very similar thing except that in SMIL the author can
associate the text track with the player's persistent captioning
preference (the author can also associate a video or other element with
the caption setting if desired).

WMP is the only player of this group that uses a dedicated caption data
file rather than a multipurpose streaming text format. This is largely
academic, but goes to my point that there isn't a clean way to slice
where the onus of responsibility lies and that we are probably better
off having a standard that effectively says "we don't care who is
responsible for which bits of this process, just make sure that cc or ad
are present".

> > This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others with more

> > difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen any time soon.

> Thanks for the promo ;-)

Anytime!

> Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
advanced captioning and audio description features that would require
more than an
> on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking about
broadcast, recorded, and web-based....

I'll chime in that 708 caption decoders typically have a greater level
of customization for the user - what advanced features are you thinking
about for audio description - select male or female voice for the
high-quality TTS voicing of description data? That'd be nice, but we'll
be hearing about WCAG 4 before we see that anywhere.

It seems that most complaints are related to caption and audio
description availability, not placement - we should focus on that aspect
first.

AWK

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

> But don't the underlying QT and Flash platforms contain the
accessibility capabilities such as captioning, description, keyboard
navigation/control,
> etc.? It's then the author's job to use these capabilities. Am I
missing something?

Flash and QT know about putting text on the screen, but not specifically
about captioning. In the case of Flash, there is the ability to parse
XML and a developer can write a script that links the display of the
data that is parsed to the timeline of a particular piece of media being
displayed in the same flash application, but there is no innate
knowledge of "captioning". QT handles more of this automatically since
it has an internalized process to parse and display a text file with
timecode and text information, but it is up to the developer to make the
captions display or not display - there is no persistent setting for
caption display, and QT doesn't know whether the text track being
displayed is a stock ticker or captions.

Real does a very similar thing except that in SMIL the author can
associate the text track with the player's persistent captioning
preference (the author can also associate a video or other element with
the caption setting if desired).

WMP is the only player of this group that uses a dedicated caption data
file rather than a multipurpose streaming text format. This is largely
academic, but goes to my point that there isn't a clean way to slice
where the onus of responsibility lies and that we are probably better
off having a standard that effectively says "we don't care who is
responsible for which bits of this process, just make sure that cc or ad
are present".

> > This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others with more

> > difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen any time soon.

> Thanks for the promo ;-)

Anytime!

> Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
advanced captioning and audio description features that would require
more than an
> on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking about
broadcast, recorded, and web-based....

I'll chime in that 708 caption decoders typically have a greater level
of customization for the user - what advanced features are you thinking
about for audio description - select male or female voice for the
high-quality TTS voicing of description data? That'd be nice, but we'll
be hearing about WCAG 4 before we see that anywhere.

It seems that most complaints are related to caption and audio
description availability, not placement - we should focus on that aspect
first.

AWK

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:00 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> > This seems to me like another accessibility value chain example:
> >
> > 1. The content must contain both captioning and audio description,
> either open or closed, at the author's discretion.
> > 2. The device/product/system on which the content is being "played"
> must recognize the presence of closed captioning and/or audio
> description, and
> > provide a method for the user to control the captioning and
> description.
> >
> > So two parties are burdened here. There may be others in
> the chain as
> well, if the content is on a server, and the player is a
> browser plugin, etc.
>
> Jim, two parties are not always burdened. Sometimes the
> content is the system, as in QT and some Flash examples -
> there may be others.

But don't the underlying QT and Flash platforms contain the
accessibility capabilities such as captioning, description,
keyboard navigation/control, etc.? It's then the author's
job to use these capabilities. Am I missing something?

> > Now, I have a question. So far we've been looking at captioning and
> audio description as boolean -- they're either there or not,
> or on or not. But
> > aren't both of these alternate formats undergoing evolution, with
> other options such as screen location, font, etc.
> > potentially controllable by users? If we want to update the
> standards, shouldn't we add some reference to these characteristics?
>
> This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others
> with more difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen
> any time soon.

Thanks for the promo ;-)
Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
advanced captioning and audio description features that would require
more than an on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking
about broadcast, recorded, and web-based....

From: Baronas, Jean
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

1/4/06

All,

Please consider simplifying the text, as opposed to expanding the text,
to a technology-neutral approach (which should "last" longer):

"The product shall provide a method for the user to turn closed captions
or audio descriptions on and off."

The above is Karen's first sentence. I recommend that Karen's second
sentence be deleted since it is duplicative.


Thanks,
Jean Baronas






-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:01 AM
To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:00 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> > This seems to me like another accessibility value chain example:
> >
> > 1. The content must contain both captioning and audio description,
> either open or closed, at the author's discretion.
> > 2. The device/product/system on which the content is being "played"
> must recognize the presence of closed captioning and/or audio
> description, and
> > provide a method for the user to control the captioning and
> description.
> >
> > So two parties are burdened here. There may be others in
> the chain as
> well, if the content is on a server, and the player is a
> browser plugin, etc.
>
> Jim, two parties are not always burdened. Sometimes the
> content is the system, as in QT and some Flash examples -
> there may be others.

But don't the underlying QT and Flash platforms contain the
accessibility capabilities such as captioning, description,
keyboard navigation/control, etc.? It's then the author's
job to use these capabilities. Am I missing something?

> > Now, I have a question. So far we've been looking at captioning and
> audio description as boolean -- they're either there or not,
> or on or not. But
> > aren't both of these alternate formats undergoing evolution, with
> other options such as screen location, font, etc.
> > potentially controllable by users? If we want to update the
> standards, shouldn't we add some reference to these characteristics?
>
> This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others
> with more difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen
> any time soon.

Thanks for the promo ;-)
Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
advanced captioning and audio description features that would require
more than an on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking
about broadcast, recorded, and web-based....

From: geoff freed
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I agree-- there must be language indicating that open captions/
descriptions are acceptable. which brings us back to dave's one-
sentence summary:

Audio descriptions and captions must be either (a) permanently
presented to all recipients ("open") or (b) capable of being turned
on and off by each individual recipient ("closed").

geoff.


On Jan 4, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:

> The second sentence is needed - the captions/descriptions might be
> open
> and that should be OK.
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Baronas,
> Jean
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:02 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> 1/4/06
>
> All,
>
> Please consider simplifying the text, as opposed to expanding the
> text,
> to a technology-neutral approach (which should "last" longer):
>
> "The product shall provide a method for the user to turn closed
> captions
> or audio descriptions on and off."
>
> The above is Karen's first sentence. I recommend that Karen's second
> sentence be deleted since it is duplicative.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jean Baronas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:01 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
> Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:00 PM
>> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>>
>>
>>> This seems to me like another accessibility value chain example:
>>>
>>> 1. The content must contain both captioning and audio description,
>> either open or closed, at the author's discretion.
>>> 2. The device/product/system on which the content is being "played"
>> must recognize the presence of closed captioning and/or audio
>> description, and
>>> provide a method for the user to control the captioning and
>> description.
>>>
>>> So two parties are burdened here. There may be others in
>> the chain as
>> well, if the content is on a server, and the player is a browser
>> plugin, etc.
>>
>> Jim, two parties are not always burdened. Sometimes the content is
>> the system, as in QT and some Flash examples - there may be others.
>
> But don't the underlying QT and Flash platforms contain the
> accessibility capabilities such as captioning, description, keyboard
> navigation/control, etc.? It's then the author's job to use these
> capabilities. Am I missing something?
>
>>> Now, I have a question. So far we've been looking at captioning and
>> audio description as boolean -- they're either there or not, or on or
>> not. But
>>> aren't both of these alternate formats undergoing evolution, with
>> other options such as screen location, font, etc.
>>> potentially controllable by users? If we want to update the
>> standards, shouldn't we add some reference to these characteristics?
>>
>> This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others with more
>> difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen any time soon.
>
> Thanks for the promo ;-)
> Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
> advanced
> captioning and audio description features that would require more than
> an on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking about
> broadcast, recorded, and web-based....
>
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

The second sentence is needed - the captions/descriptions might be open
and that should be OK.
AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Baronas, Jean
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:02 PM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)

1/4/06

All,

Please consider simplifying the text, as opposed to expanding the text,
to a technology-neutral approach (which should "last" longer):

"The product shall provide a method for the user to turn closed captions
or audio descriptions on and off."

The above is Karen's first sentence. I recommend that Karen's second
sentence be deleted since it is duplicative.


Thanks,
Jean Baronas






-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:01 AM
To: 'TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:00 PM
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
>
> > This seems to me like another accessibility value chain example:
> >
> > 1. The content must contain both captioning and audio description,
> either open or closed, at the author's discretion.
> > 2. The device/product/system on which the content is being "played"
> must recognize the presence of closed captioning and/or audio
> description, and
> > provide a method for the user to control the captioning and
> description.
> >
> > So two parties are burdened here. There may be others in
> the chain as
> well, if the content is on a server, and the player is a browser
> plugin, etc.
>
> Jim, two parties are not always burdened. Sometimes the content is
> the system, as in QT and some Flash examples - there may be others.

But don't the underlying QT and Flash platforms contain the
accessibility capabilities such as captioning, description, keyboard
navigation/control, etc.? It's then the author's job to use these
capabilities. Am I missing something?

> > Now, I have a question. So far we've been looking at captioning and
> audio description as boolean -- they're either there or not, or on or
> not. But
> > aren't both of these alternate formats undergoing evolution, with
> other options such as screen location, font, etc.
> > potentially controllable by users? If we want to update the
> standards, shouldn't we add some reference to these characteristics?
>
> This could all be done in Flash, and potentially by others with more
> difficulty, but none of this is likely to be seen any time soon.

Thanks for the promo ;-)
Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for advanced
captioning and audio description features that would require more than
an on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking about
broadcast, recorded, and web-based....

From: Dave Singer
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

I'm having following this conversation since the phone call. I was
guilty of this before the call, so I wil confess now, but if you
could say why you are either proposing something other than the
baseline text we liked on the phone call, or why you are proposing a
change to it (i.e. "what problem are you addressing") -- which, as I
say, I failed to do in the message in which I proposed that baseline
text -- it might be easier.

As it is, I'm seeing variants which seem to say the same as that
text, or the same as texts appearing before that text, but I am
really unclear why they are different, what residual problems we see,
and which of those we think we have solved...

thanks!
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

Jim Tobias wrote:

> Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
> advanced captioning and audio description features that would require
> more than an on/off user interface? I suppose we have to be talking
> about broadcast, recorded, and web-based....


Maybe if you can expand (explain) in more depth what you are asking...

- Larry

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: revision of 24(e)

sorry -- i think we need some background on the future of
captioning and how soon that future arrives. what parameters
are going to be able to be controlled by users, such as:

position on the screen
font/size/color
verbosity
...

is it foreseen that users will want to briefly review/rewind captions while
the video continues
playing? that is, can the caption track be separated from the rest of the
program?

i'm not trying to speculatively create new features; i'm trying to
understand what's already
under consideration or in the pipeline.

and when i said "broadcast, recorded, and web-based" i meant, are there
separate pipelines
for features depending on the medium? for example, web-based gives you the
ability to totally
separate the caption window from the video window. what else makes the
interfaces potentially
different.

these questions arise in the context of improving 24e so it reflects
upcoming interface features rather
than perpetuating the current "on/off" model.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Goldberg [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:41 PM
> To: TEITAC AV list; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] revision of 24(e)
>
> Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> > Larry and Geoff -- can you enlighten us as to the timetable for
> > advanced captioning and audio description features that
> would require
> > more than an on/off user interface? I suppose we have to
> be talking
> > about broadcast, recorded, and web-based....
>
>
> Maybe if you can expand (explain) in more depth what you are
> asking...
>
> - Larry
>
>
>