- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 01:31:58 +1100
- To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com" <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote: > > Hi, Silvia: > > It depends on the transmission. #2 is the case in broadcast: there’s a > stream of video + program audio, then on a separate audio channel there’s a > stream of ducked, full-mix audio. The viewer is then responsible for > locating and activating the full-mix audio (usually buried in several layers > of inaccessible on-screen menus). #3 is the case on the Web (most of the > time): the author provides separate links to undescribed video (video track > + program-audio track) and open-described video (video track + full-mix > audio track), allowing the user to choose which to view. In some cases, an > author will simply provide a single, open-described video. > > Re #1: you probably know this, but the QuickTime Player and other Apple > devices will handle additional embedded audio tracks which can be toggled on > and off via menus, and the JW Player will accept additional audio tracks and > provide on/off control as well. And SMIL players can stream additional > audio tracks, obviously. But not many authors take advantage of this stuff > today. That's exactly why I was asking, since you are in the business of creating these things right now and would have the most experience. For #3 there is not much to do actually - just having a means to switch between resources would be sufficient. That means could be a button underneath the video or a second tab with the video and lets the user change between the main video and it's auditory-only counterpart. I wonder if we even need special accessibility features for this. #1 and #2 are the cause of this discussion here. The intention is to create a markup for #2 and expose both types of tracks - #1 and #2 - through the same JavaScript API. Since #1 doesn't need extra markup, it's actually the easier one to come up with a solution for. If you would have said that #1 is the most common way of publishing audio descriptions, I would have suggested to just introduce a JS API for now and not worry about the markup, which is the hardest part to get right. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 14:32:51 UTC