- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:18:23 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jongund@staff.uiuc.edu (Jon Gunderson)
- Cc: danson@miseri.edu, ph@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
to follow up on what Jon Gunderson said: > Actually I think the two document (one with the original video > and sound, and the second with the synchonized captioning > information) format is probably better, since it can be added > later for an uncaptioned video and it allows the captioning > presentation to be controlled by the user through the user > agent. It depends on what you consider a document. A SMIL document is a folder of resources with one glue piece. Some of the resources are web address for RTSP streams. And the glue piece is in an open text format. So if the top level integrating piece of the document is a SMIL file, there is no real conflict between making it one document and adding more augmentative tracks later. [Is this point more of an GL issue, perhaps?] Al > > Jon > > > At 10:17 AM 10/8/98 -0400, Denis Anson wrote: > >>With the current SMIL standard would the author need to create two versions > >>of their document, one with captions and the other without; or would the > >>captioning be an add on to the original document so the user just turns it > >>on or off? > > > >Regardless of what the current standard is, it ought to be a feature of a > >single document that can be turned on and off. If the standard makes it > >difficult to do the task right, most developers will take the easy > >route,and decide that captioning isn't *that* important. > > > >Denis > > > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP > Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology > Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services > University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign > 1207 S. Oak Street > Champaign, IL 61820 > > Voice: 217-244-5870 > Fax: 217-333-0248 > E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu > WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund > http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess >
Received on Thursday, 8 October 1998 23:18:45 UTC