- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:22:44 +1000
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Gal Klein <gal@plymedia.com>, public-texttracks@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> >> >> > But regarding "in the future"--we can always add new features in the >> > future. >> >> With that statement you have just excluded YouTube from moving to >> using WebVTT for HTML5 captions. And even though YouTube should not be >> the only use case that we regard, it certainly is the biggest caption >> user online, so excluding them seems counterproductive. > > > If YouTube wants a feature, they should come on the list and talk about > their use cases. Web standards aren't developed based on "(some big > website) is threatening to not use our format unless we give them this". I am here and being paid by Google's accessibility team to make sure this use case is supported for our YouTube captions, because we need it. I've listed our use cases. What more do you want me to say? >> Interesting. We should explore that further. >> Note that in CEA 708 we have 9 actual locations for rendering captions >> on video. Might be that 4 are sufficient for grouping. What about the >> center? > > > I'd leave it out unless there are use cases for it, since it can always be > added later. What about explicitly positioned cues, e.g. underneath a certain person and the desire to have captions scrolling there? The more I think about it the more I think that any limitation on regions is a poor approach. It's better to explicitly define a rendering region (as suggested by Christopher) and render scrolling captions or whatever other sets of captions we want into there. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 01:23:33 UTC