RE: [blink-dev] WebVTT vs TTML Features

As a provider of LIVE Captions on web-based solutiosn the technology today allows us to provide Super Synced captions for LIVE.
The sync is as accurate as on On-Demand, and text is segmented into phrases.
In today's world and over the internet you can provide much better solutions then what is currently offered on TV.
I understand the easiness of reading but it totally takes your attention from the video, where pop-ons allows you to follow both. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Goldstein, Glenn [mailto:glenn.goldstein@viacom.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:47 PM
To: Gal Klein; 'Nigel Megitt'; 'David Singer'; 'Andreas Tai'
Cc: 'Silvia Pfieffer'; 'Glenn Adams'; 'Victor Cărbune'; 'Silvia Pfeiffer'; public-texttracks@w3.org
Subject: Re: [blink-dev] WebVTT vs TTML Features

roll-up captions are extremely prevalent on America television - they are the standard for all live captioned shows, and are used extensively for late-delivered pre-recorded programs where  captioner is authoring the captions "live" while listening to a contribution feed of the program from a production facility to a distribution facility.

the nature of roll-up captions is such that they are actually easier to read when rendered with characters painting on left-to-right and lines smoothly scrolling up. this style helps your eye follow the text more easily, and is important since the captions are not being chunked up into phrases that work well with pop-ons.

frankly, i continue to be disappointed with the web community's dismissal of the prevalence and importance of roll-up captions in the television world.









On 12/12/13 9:45 AM, "Gal Klein" <gal@plymedia.com> wrote:

>Why will you prefer a roll-up over pop-ons ???
>All On-Demand videos are pop-ons and roll-up were just a constraint of 
>the past - not a good solution if you ask anyone who actually uses the 
>captions.
>I fail to see the reasoning, just keeping things AS THEY WERE is not a 
>good choice...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Goldstein, Glenn [mailto:glenn.goldstein@viacom.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:32 PM
>To: Nigel Megitt; David Singer; Andreas Tai
>Cc: Silvia Pfieffer; Glenn Adams; Victor Cărbune; Silvia Pfeiffer; 
>public-texttracks@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [blink-dev] WebVTT vs TTML Features
>
>i'll chime in for Viacom here - TTML is widely used.
>
>We have thousands of TTML files here, used for closed captioning and 
>subtitling across dozens of web sites and mobile applications. For 
>closed captioning, our native authoring format continues to be 608/708, 
>and our architecture accommodates a conversion step to a format such as 
>TTML or webVTT.
>
>The big issue for us is that the conversion from 608/708 to TTML or 
>webVTT be as lossless as possible, faithfully preserving positioning 
>and roll-up styles from the original authored captions. from what i've 
>seen, TTML and webVTT are both doing this pretty well now with the 
>exception of roll-up support. i hope/assume that both webVTT and TTML 
>renderers will begin to support roll-ups soon, as it is the standard for live captioned programs.
>
>
>Glenn Goldstein
>Chief Technology Convergence Officer
>Tel: (212) 846-3210
>Email: glenn.goldstein@viacom.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 12/12/13 5:48 AM, "Nigel Megitt" <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 11/12/2013 22:11, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Andreas,
>>>
>>>thanks for the thoughtful points.
>>>
>>>On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:52 , Andreas Tai <tai@irt.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The decision to build upon SRT instead of  TTML and the reasons 
>>>>that led to this decision have to be respected. But it seems not 
>>>>correct to me now to deny that TTML is a rendering format for "web 
>>>>distribution of captions" and ignore the fact that it is widely used 
>>>>for
>this purpose.
>>>>It was used before WebVTT reached a stable status. This fact seems 
>>>>not to be well known and it is often mistrusted so indeed a list 
>>>>which content providers already use TTML would make this more
>transparent.
>>>>
>>>> It seems like an irony of the story that the format that were added 
>>>>at a later stage for the same purpose makes a claim to be the only 
>>>>legitimate candidate for that purpose.
>>>
>>>I think actions or words that attempt to denigrate, pigeonhole, 
>>>spindle, fold, or mutilate [1] either format are not helpful.  We 
>>>need to focus our energies on what we care about most: making 
>>>multimedia web content accessible.
>>
>>Agreed - and we need to recognise the sensitivities and try to avoid 
>>actions or words that could be interpreted as being derogatory even if 
>>they're not intended as such.
>>
>>As we've seen, we may need to be more explicit about exactly what we 
>>mean than we'd normally be while we're collectively developing a 
>>common understanding and developing accepted shorthands or jargon.
>>
>>>>We have two W3C rendering formats for captions on the web. This is 
>>>>not a pleasant situation. But we have to cope with it. The new 
>>>>development to combine both efforts in one group is a good, 
>>>>pragmatic start. It can work out if on both sides co-existence on 
>>>>the same field is
>accepted.
>>>
>>>Completely agree.
>>
>>Likewise.
>>
>>Nigel
>>
>>
>>>
>>>[1]
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Fold,_Spindle_or_Mutilate#cite_no
>>>t
>>>e-1
>>>
>>>
>>>David Singer
>>>Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk
>>This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
>>personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
>>stated.
>>If you have received it in
>>error, please delete it from your system.
>>Do not use, copy or disclose the
>>information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender 
>>immediately.
>>Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
>>Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>>-----------------------------
>>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 14:52:17 UTC