Re: Accessibility and EME (was RE: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 12, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> John,
>
> Thanks for your detailed reply.
>
>> This is not entirely correct, and with regard to media is a non-issue.
>
> Agreed - my concern was around non-media content like text.  It sounds
> like you & the accessibility folks have media controls well covered.
>
>> Screen reading tools used by the blind and low-vision user essentially
>> interacts with the DOM (or a virtual snapshot of that DOM, depending on
>> the
>> tool), and so anything that is in the DOM is "shifted" to an alternative
>> output mode: text is rendered via either a speech output or Braille
>> output
>> device via the Accessibility APIs of the different operating systems.
>> Blind
>> users however will be able to hear the encrypted videos audio stream
>> exactly
>> like you will if you (or they) are using a device that supports the
>> decryption of the media stream.
>
> This is the area of accessibility tech. that I'm more familiar with, and
> it's the core of my accessibility concern w.r.t. CDMs.  My understanding
> is that text protected by a CDM will not be accessible through the DOM,
> and thus will be inaccessible to screen reading tools.
>
> The CDM can choose to provide a clear-text stream for use by such a
> device, but in the case of text, wouldn't that be exactly equivalent to
> the protected content in the first place?  It seems unlikely to me that
> such a solution would seem acceptable to content providers, but as
> you've correctly pointed out, you have far greater experience &
> knowledge in this area.

Actually, we're not aware of any requirements from content providers
for DRM protection of subtitles/captions. All our subtitles/captions
are delivered in the clear today.

...Mark

>
>> So you were basically wrong about *all* of that, from understanding how
>> Assistive Technology actually works, to *any* of the potential accessibility
>> issues of "HTML5 Media", as well as initially expressing this as an issue
>> for "physically disabled" users. It did not go un-noticed to me that you
>> then attempted to try and make this a screen-reader issue/problem (which it
>> really isn't either).
>>
>> My accusation of FUD stands, and my frustration and outright anger of you
>> attempting to invoke "accessibility" as a justification for not working
>> on EME is, to my mind, unconscionable. This is not the first time I've
>> encountered others attempting to "play the accessibility trump card" with
>> little-to-zero knowledge or understanding of the real issues, but, what
>> the heck, who is actually going to *oppose* accessibility and "doing the
>> right thing", so it's an easy point to score, right? Right.
>
> I mentioned screen-readers because they are the assistive technology
> with which I'm most familar.  And, as I explained above, I'm still a
> little uncertain as to how screen-reader integration with EME / CDM -
> protected text (not video or audio content!) - would work in practice.
>
> Even given that concern, I'm quite happy to amend my statement to:
>
> "The *sole* purpose of EME is to interop with closed-source proprietary
> blobs called CDMs.  These will most assuredly not be available to all
> people regardless of hardware, software, network infrastructure, and
> geographical localtion.  They will probably not cater for those who
> speak non-mainstream languages."
>
> Would that satisfy you?
>
> --
> Duncan Bayne
> ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
> duncan_bayne
>
> I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
> urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me at the above number.
>

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 04:47:53 UTC