Re: Absolute region positioning (was Re: Alternative approach to scrolling, with demos)

I also feel the need to reiterate: most of the stuff that is *legally*
required is covered by good use cases, and backed by requirements that
consumers *with disabilities* asked for, based on *their needs*. While
there are some things that cause issues, and that may be less well thought
out, the majority of what the FCC rules state are things that we need to do
because they impact usability and access, not because of legal language.
Consumers really would resent reading that "some features are required
legally" and for this reason they should be made integrated with WebVTT.

Best wishes
Christian


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Christian Vogler <
christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu> wrote:

> I'll also add that I have very strong reservations about making it a
> JavaScript and video distributor issue, but a detailed explanation will
> have to wait until I have time to write it up.
>
> Sent from my mobile phone.  Please excuse any touchscreen-induced
> weirdness.
> On May 9, 2014 10:50 AM, "Christian Vogler" <
> christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu> wrote:
>
>> Browser vendors are liable to comply with 79 CFR 103. That's been
>> settled  long ago and is not even under debate.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Christian
>>
>> Sent from my mobile phone.  Please excuse any touchscreen-induced
>> weirdness.
>> On May 9, 2014 10:47 AM, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:50 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On May 7, 2014, at 9:31 , Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:45 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I rather suspect that we’d be a lot further ahead if we hadn’t spent
>>> a lot of time following mandates to emulate x08, honestly.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But overall, I share your frustration and agree with the goals.  The
>>> goal is great accessibility across the ecosystem.  Let’s get there.
>>> >>
>>> >> VTTRegion is emulating 708, though, and until now it seemed like you
>>> >> were unwilling to make any changes to it. What do you think the path
>>> >> towards great accessibility is, in more concrete terms?
>>> >
>>> > Well, two things.
>>> >
>>> > I wasn’t crazy about emulating 708, but we were adding features to get
>>> in line with the FCC document, and it seemed that if that was the goal,
>>> then simply emulating was the thing to do.  I am not at all sure I agree
>>> with the implication that 708 is the perfection of captioning systems, and
>>> its characteristics and quirks have to be carried into future systems, but
>>> that’s where the FCC put us.
>>>
>>> Where exactly has the FCC put you? Isn't it the responsibility of the
>>> video distributor to ensure that captions are of high enough quality?
>>> Maybe they will claim that they can do nothing without full browser
>>> support, but they would simply be mistaken and failing to make use of
>>> the full Web platform. Do you believe that *browser vendors* will be
>>> liable if they don't support a format which is a superset of 708?
>>>
>>> > The best thing we can do, in my opinion, is to have a simple stable
>>> spec. that is widely deployed and widely used, so that content actually is
>>> accessible because both the client system and the content support it.
>>> >
>>> > Yes, it’s worth making sure edge cases are covered and so on, but most
>>> captioning is pretty vanilla, isn’t it?
>>>
>>> Maybe this is a straw man, but it kind of sounds like you want to get
>>> this 708 legality over with and focus on the vanilla stuff. I think
>>> that if some features are legally required then we should still try to
>>> make them as well integrated into vanilla WebVTT as we possibly can.
>>>
>>> Philip
>>>
>>


-- 
Christian Vogler, PhD
Director, Technology Access Program
Department of Communication Studies
SLCC 1116
Gallaudet University
http://tap.gallaudet.edu/
VP: 202-250-2795