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

RE: [media] Moving forward with captions / subtitles

From: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:54:56 -0500
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
CC: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B3526F4AC3C3C64388BF661A8B2112A75EE20ABB95@EXCHCCR.wgbh.org>

________________________________________
From: Silvia Pfeiffer [silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:49 AM
To: Philip Jägenstedt
Cc: Geoff Freed; Eric Carlson; HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Re: [media] Moving forward with captions / subtitles

<snip>

So, maybe this could mean:

<video src="video.ogv">
   <track src="cc.en.srt" srclang="en" role="CC" active>
   <track src="tad.en.srt" srclang="en" role="TAD">
   <trackgroup role="SUB">
      <track src="subs.de.srt" srclang="de">
       <track src="subs.sv.srt" srclang="sv">
       <track src="subs.jp.srt" srclang="jp">
   </trackgroup>
</video>

the CC, the TAD, and one of the SUB tracks can be active together.

I think this may be the compromise we are after?

GF:
I think so.  I can live with this.  So, if I wanted to allow CC, TAD and two SUBs to be simultaneously active (at the user's discretion, of course), I'd move them out of <trackgroup>:

<video src="video.ogv">
   <track src="cc.en.srt" srclang="en" role="CC" active>
   <track src="tad.en.srt" srclang="en" role="TAD">
   <track src="subs.de.srt" srclang="de" role="sub">
   <track src="subs.sv.srt" srclang="sv" sole="sub">
   <trackgroup role="SUB">
       <track src="subs.jp.srt" srclang="jp">
       <track src="subs.it.srt" srclang="it">
   </trackgroup>
</video>

Here, only Japanese or Italian would be active by themselves; all others *could* be running at the same time.  

Also, I don't know if you're intending to capitalize the role values, but I think we should keep them lowercase (as I've done above) to conform with other markup languages.  Is there any reason to use uppercase?


> The minimized form of <track><source> (omitting <source>) makes all tracks
> parallel while the minimized form of <trackgroup><track> (omitting
> <trackgroup>) makes all track mutually exclusive.

Yes, I think that was the main difference between our proposals.


> When it comes to UI, I think <trackgroup><track> is better because it
> reflects exactly what a sensible menu nesting could look like, while the
> minimized form of <track><source> would have a less direct mapping (or a
> menu with checkboxes or similar).
>
> We could also completely drop the nesting and introduce a grouping attribute
> on <track>, but I don't think that would be better than either existing
> proposal.

Agreed. I think that confirms the above proposal?

I'm curious what Eric and Geoff think about this now?

GF:  I think we're about to agree on something.  I'll reply to the other posts as I wade through them this morning.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 12:56:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:02 GMT