- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:29:15 -0700
- To: jfoliot@stanford.edu
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-id: <94EF799B-A521-496C-A8DE-27227E5D4666@apple.com>
On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:02 PM, jfoliot@stanford.edu wrote: > >> >> (1) Timed text tracks in the video file itself, with some form of >> user control offered. > > Will end users be able to 'extract' the text from the media asset > for repurposing (for example to Braille output device)? Will it > allow for text resizing (for low vision users), or re-styling via > CSS (adjusting foreground/background contrast aiding low vision and > dyslexic users, etc.)? It would be very interesting to see the full > proposal if it is public. I don't think we've worked out the details. Timed text tracks are a standard part of MPEG-4 and other common media standards. I think any adjustment of the presentation of user needs would have to be by the UA or assistive technologies, not by author CSS. > >> (2) Alternate video files with "burned in" captions, selected >> according to user preferences and using the media="" attribute of >> the <source> element, with some extensions we have proposed for >> accessibility preferences. (*) > > While it is hard to be upset with a full-on accessibility strategy > (so don't misunderstand me), I suspect that this type of involved > solution would see little uptake from majority web developers. > Unless you are suggesting that sometimes specialty solutions *are* > acceptable... [mischevious grin]. However it is great news to hear > that Apple for one is pushing the envelope here. I'm told by our media folks that there is video content out there where the only captioned form available is burned-in captions. In such cases, transcribing the captions to a text track would be a considerable burden, so we don't want to rule out using burned-in captions. [...] > >> Of these, I think a timed text track in the video is the >> technically best solution. That way, accessibility is built into >> the media file itself, regardless of viewing context. But all of >> these options should be available. > > Agreed - *if* the text can be extracted simply and natively. This of > course would also offer huge SEO benefits, as the transcript would > not be 'hidden' inside a binary file ( as is currently the case with > SCV files). I understand the desire to have everything wrapped up in > one 'downloadable' file, but I am also leary of any solution that > only sees captioning as a deaf / hearing impaired issue, which is > the initial impression I get from burned in captioning... Search engines could look at text tracks in MPEG-4 files now, if they wanted to, since the way to do this is standardized, as I uunderstand it. > >> We've also looked at the possibility of captions as an external >> annotation in some declarative form, but I don't think we've >> proposed a concrete solution along these lines. > > Thanks for the update Maciej, here's hoping these types of solutions > are included in the draft - I think it would be incomplete to > approach Last Call without this type of solution in the draft - be > it the Apple suggestions or another. I don't think any of these proposals would require a change to HTML5, since they all work using existing features. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 06:45:14 UTC