W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Media Captioning Question

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:21:55 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTin6s0BHMqBnjUov0NBrr1gqX+=NZsBy3y1Artob@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Given all this background, I would suggest we keep the term "extended audio
description", since it does extend the timeline and people know it and it
has been in use. We haven't actually included the "enhanced" capabilities in
the requirements for "extended audio descriptions" at this stage - there is
no talk about hyperlinks and such.

Also, I would suggest to rename "extended captions" to "enhanced captions".
I actually like this term better, because it better conveys how we are
extending it - namely with enhanced content.

Just my 2c FWIW.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Forwarding the following to the list with Geoff's permission, because
> this conversation should engage our wider community ...
>
> Geoff Freed writes:
>
> hi, janina:
>
> several years ago i tried some experiments with the concept using SMIL with
> CWI's Ambulant player on windows and windows CE, but these were things i did
> not publish anywhere.  others here at NCAM have also kicked around the idea
> of pausing the video and program audio (that is, the main audio) tracks in
> order to display supplemental info in the caption region, such as vocabulary
> definitions or other text that is not part of the program-audio track.  we
> referred to this concept of using additional text as "extended captions,"
> but to the best of my knowledge, nobody is actually using extended captions
> today in any sense of the word.
>
> as for terminology, things can be a bit squishy but still we can find a way
> to conform terminology between captions and descriptions.  "extended
> descriptions" has been in use for at least a decade.  NCAM even ran a
> three-year study (2000-2003) of the concept of using extended descriptions
> in the classroom.  however, the Access for All standard (
> http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/index.html#accDRD) uses the
> adjective "enhanced" to describe supplemental information added to things
> like captions or descriptions.  in fact, version 2 of the specification even
> uses the term "enhanced descriptions" specifically at
> http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accpnpv2p0/spec/ISO_ACCPNPinfoModelv2p0.html#_Toc259001615.
>  below is what is written into the spec:
>
> ======
> Rule A.23-01:
> If Code = 01 (Enhanced) is used, the caption being described is enhanced,
> i.e. it contains extra
> content such as images, hyperlinks, etc.
> ======
>
> version 3 of the spec is due out very soon, and my colleague madeleine
> rothberg tells me it *will* use the specific terms "enhanced captions" and
> "enhanced descriptions."  madeleine also says that rich schwerdtfeger is
> working on getting Access for All integrated into HTML5 media queries (we
> might want to ask him about that as i am not following that topic).  so, in
> the spirit of consistency with other specs as well a using a common term
> that can be easily understood by non-specification-reading dweebs like us,
> i'd lobby for using "enhanced descriptions" and "enhanced captions" in the
> a11y user requirements doc.   i think they both convey the points we're
> trying to make.  what do you think?
>
> geoff.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/24/10 10:22 PM, "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, Geoff:
>
> I've been meaning to get your advice on the following for some days now
> ...
>
> In the HTML 5 A11y TF's Media Accessibility User Requirements we use the
> "Extended" concept twice, once for video description, and once for
> captions. But, we actually mean pretty different things by these, so I'd
> prefer to not use the "extended" term for both.
>
> 1.)     Extended makes sense to me with descriptions. We're "extending"
> the timeline. Arguably, it's an orthogonal extension, but an extension
> of time, nonetheless.
>
> 2.)     We're using extended about captions, as well:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements#Extended_Time-aligned_Captions.2FSubtitles
>
>
> However, it strikes me that we're "enhancing" or maybe "enriching" the
> captions with additional functionality.
>
> So, the question ...
>
> Is the concept of "Extended Captions" truly used today, so that it's too
> late to use a different E word to help distinguish from descriptions?
> Our text claims this to be common usage. Is it? Or should we look at a
> word other than "extended" for captions? Or for descriptions?
>
> Janina
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net<sip%3Ajanina@asterisk.rednote.net>
>
> Chair, Open Accessibility       janina@a11y.org
> Linux Foundation                http://a11y.org
>
> Chair, Protocols & Formats
> Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 03:22:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:13 UTC