RE: Captions for audio clips

Yes, it would seem to be a good thing for SMIL to allow text content in teh
XML itself, using normal SMIL timing and allowing for CSS or XSL as a
presentation control.

This would achieve all the goals of having text, and allow a SMIL
presentation to be read sa plain XML without any multimedia player.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Marja-Riitta Koivunen wrote:

  At 02:41 AM 12/20/99 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >SMIL doesn't provide for timing inside media objects - you can do that by
  >breaking them into pieces and using explicit timing (that's what would be
  >good to do).
  
  If synchronization becomes so important should we try to talk to SMIL WG to
  be able to do a SMIL file that contains both the text and timecodes? Or
  maybe it should be a separate standard? Having one file for each text line
  that needs to be synchronized is really cumbersome. And if the
  synchronization changes the files need to change as well. A good tool may
  help to manage this but still I would prefer the timecodes with the text.
  
  Another thing is that the user should be able to control what media is
  shown. The author design can be a default, but if the author has not
  thought of every necessary combination, the user should still be able to
  change it.
  
  One question: if we say synchronization is necessary then what is the
  amount of synchronization that is needed? Every sentence? Every paragraph?
  
  I think synchronization is often at least P3 (often probably more) but in
  some cases I would also like to be able to just read the text and not care
  about the synchronization at all. Is there a way to have both? A SMIL
  synchronization file that refers to different text portions in a text
  transcript file (without forcing it to be divided into several files)? Or
  just being able to ignore the time codes when reading synchronized text?
  
  Marja
  
  > The W3C validator should now validate SMIL documents (well, XML
  >in general in theory, and SMIL is XML).
  >
  >I agree that it is at least P2, although I am not sure if it isn't in fact
  >P1.
  >
  >Charles McCN
  >
  >On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Bruce Bailey wrote:
  >
  >  Dear Phill (et al.)
  >  
  >  IMHO, it is a clear case of P2!
  >  
  >  Populations effected:  Persons for whom English is a second language. 
  >   Persons who are not deaf but have impaired hearing.  Persons with
  learning 
  >  disabilities for whom processing auditory information is difficult (but
  not 
  >  impossible).
  >  
  >  The assumption is that ALL of the above persons might very well PREFER an 
  >  audio stream for the SAME REASONS everyone else prefers audio over a text 
  >  transcript.  Is it a useful exercise for use to delineate why an aural 
  >  presentation is better (in some cases) than a textual one?
  >  
  >  >From this perspective, the situation is very analogous to persons with
  VERY 
  >  poor vision who STILL PREFER a GUI browser!  We are empathetic / 
  >  sympathetic to this orientation.  Just as we accommodate the partially 
  >  sighted, so should we adjust for the hard of hearing.
  >  
  >  For the above populations, "unimedia audio" represents a significant 
  >  barrier to their access of content (we are using RealAudio radio
  broadcasts 
  >  as an example).
  >  
  >  For the above populations, a separate transcript has so little value as to 
  >  be virtually useless -- just as access to Lynx is not well regarded a 
  >  viable option for web surfing by most persons with vision impairments (nor 
  >  most average people for that matter).
  >  
  >  It is, of course, important to have techniques on hand, but that should
  not 
  >  influence the assignment of Priorities.
  >  
  >  Does anyone have an example of captioned audio?
  >  
  >  I experimented with some SMIL file on my local hard drive.  I could get 
  >  RealAudio (actually a .rm RealMedia file) to play ONLY the sound (with 
  >  synchronized captions), but I could NOT get rid of the blank video window. 
  >   Probably I am just doing something wrong, but I did look at the W3C SMIL 
  >  specifications.  Does the W3C offer a SMIL validation service?
  >  
  >  Bruce Bailey
  >  
  >  
  >  On Sunday, December 12, 1999 11:52 PM, Charles McCathieNevile 
  >  [SMTP:charles@w3.org] wrote:
  >  > Phill, if you are just reading it then that is the case. However for 
  >  people
  >  > who have marginal hearing, having the sound and the captions/score 
  >  available
  >  > and synchronized is more valuable than one or the other (similarly for 
  >  people
  >  > who can hear, but have difficulty reading). One of the challenges we
  face 
  >  is
  >  > that there are people who are looking for multi-modal support - there are
  >  > more people with poor hearing than there are with no hearing (and 
  >  similarly
  >  > for other disabilities).
  >  
  >  On Wednesday, December 15, 1999 11:45 AM, pjenkins@us.ibm.com 
  >  [SMTP:pjenkins@us.ibm.com] wrote:
  >  > JW:
  >  >> It appears to be broadly agreed within the group that a requirement to
  >  >> synchronize text transcripts with audio presentations should be
  >  >> established, at least at a priority 2 level.
  >  >
  >  > PJ:
  >  > Where is the broad agreement?  Bruce, Jason, and Charles seem to agree 
  >  with
  >  > P2.  I'm arguing for P3, and Robert and Eric seem OK with either P2 or 
  >  P3,
  >  > and I haven't heard form others.  I do agree that there seems agreement
  >  > that we need to make the distinction between multimedia videos and 
  >  unimedia
  >  > sounds files in the errata so that WCAG 1.4 doesn't apply to the unimedia
  >  > sound only files.
  >  [snip]
  >  > PJ:
  >  > but I've heard no supporting rationale or any convincing evidence that
  >  > suggests that the "value" is more than useful and improves accessibility
  >  > [P3].
  >  >
  >  > Because the deaf,  [learning disabled, or those learning a foreign
  >  > language] are so comfortable now with synchronized television (and movie)
  >  > captioning, does not support the argument that they will be comfortable 
  >  or
  >  > have significant barriers removed with synchronized captioned audio only
  >  > files.  Can anyone even show me an sample example, or better yet, a real
  >  > example on the Web or anywhere?  If we don't add a supporting technique, 
  >  a
  >  > checkpoint requiring [even at P3] synchronized captions for audio only
  >  > files shouldn't even be added to the guidelines.  I've seen natural
  >  > language courses use techniques of synchronization to TEACH the language,
  >  > but we're talking about guideline 1 - equivalent alternative information 
  >  -
  >  > not "teaching natural languages" or "teaching singing".  We have been
  >  > talking about ideas and theories, how can we suppose that it fits the
  >  > definition of "significant barriers".  P3 is still "valuable" and 
  >  "useful"
  >  > and "improves accessibility".
  >  
  >
  >--
  >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 409 134 136
  >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  >21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)
  >
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 1999 03:46:13 UTC