RE: proposed enhanced definition for caption

This is normative.


I think we should adopt the new definition with the word 'important' removed
if it is a problem.   I think that it is a useful word but if left out I
think captioning guides can be used to moderate sound effect captioning.  So
the safe thing may be to delete important and accept revised definition.


Lets put is on a survey next weeks meeting.  (or this week if we have a misc



 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 




From: [] On Behalf
Of Tim Boland
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: proposed enhanced definition for caption

Is the proposed definition "normative" in any sense, or will it be used in
the context of a normative requirement?
   If so, then use of the word "important" in the proposed definition seems
somewhat subjective to me
and not objectively testable (if testability is an issue).    Would we lose
any meaning by taking the word "important" out?
What are the implications of taking the word "important" out?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

At 10:07 AM 1/31/2006 -0800, you wrote:

Based on conversations with Andrew Kirkpatrick:


Synchronized transcripts of dialogue and important sound effects. Captions
provide access to multimedia for people who are deaf or hard of hearing



Synchronized transcripts of dialogue and unspoken information such as
important sound effects and speaker placement and identification


Loretta Guarino Reid

Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 12:07:01 UTC