346
edits
Accessibility/Captioning Work Plan: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Accessibility/Captioning Work Plan (view source)
Revision as of 09:59, 4 August 2008
, 4 August 2008no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
# Separate into phase 1 and phase 2. I suggest that the work plan say in bold for each item, what the deliverable is, e.g. "Deliverable: test cases" | # Separate into phase 1 and phase 2. I suggest that the work plan say in bold for each item, what the deliverable is, e.g. "Deliverable: test cases" | ||
# Add technology specifics -- any specifics we need | # Add technology specifics -- any specifics we need | ||
# | # Add points for audio description | ||
# Describe the true complexity of the problem. | |||
= Work plan = | = Work plan = | ||
# Determine which captioning format should be supported in Mozilla for the natively-supported Ogg video. This needs to take into account | # Determine which captioning format should be supported in Mozilla for the natively-supported Ogg video. This needs to take into account the extremely complex map of video formats and players today. There is both a container and a codec involved for each video format. For a given container, you need to have a defined (and supported by tools and other video players for network effects) mapping for muxing a giving captioning format into the container. So the video codec rules. The container depends on what's conventional for the video codec, and the choice of captioning format depends on what's conventional for the container. In theory, given a muxing rule, you can put any video codec and any captiong format in any container, but in practice, video codec tends to have a conventional native container, so the video codec dictates the container and then different containers have different conventional timed text formats and the timed text formats might not have muxing rules for non-native containers | ||
Example: Ogg and MP4 are containers, whereas Theora and H.264 are codecs. | |||
Gstreamer and QuickTime are both timed media frameworks, which each can play various other container/codec combinations (?). Ogg, Theora and CMML are a natural match. MP4, H.264 and 3GPP TT are a natural match. While technically, you *could* define a way to put 3GPP TT inside Ogg, the disadvantage to doing this is blah. | |||
# Determine which subset of that format is the most crucial. This can save the Mozilla developers a good deal of work, because captioning formats are complex. Some of the complexity is necessary and some is not necessary for Mozilla suppoort | # Determine which subset of that format is the most crucial. This can save the Mozilla developers a good deal of work, because captioning formats are complex. Some of the complexity is necessary and some is not necessary for Mozilla suppoort | ||
# Work with HTML 5, web browser development and captioning communities to ensure that the solution will be accepted. We don't want different solutions in each browser. That would either mean one browser would need to redo their work, or that caption developers would have to deal with incompatible solutions in different browsers. | # Work with HTML 5, web browser development and captioning communities to ensure that the solution will be accepted. We don't want different solutions in each browser. That would either mean one browser would need to redo their work, or that caption developers would have to deal with incompatible solutions in different browsers. | ||
# Explore the need to support the following features and ensure support when found necessary: | # Explore the need to support the following features and ensure support when found necessary: | ||
##social caption creation (This poses very different requirements than the idea of making video files intrinsically accessible. [[User:Hsivonen|Hsivonen]] 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)) | ##social caption creation (This poses very different requirements than the idea of making video files intrinsically accessible. [[User:Hsivonen|Hsivonen]] 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)) [[User:aaronlev|aaronlev]] Henri also mentioned that potential legal issues could affect technical issues, but we aren't sure. It would be good if WGBH had some background to help understand this as well while devising a captioning solution. | ||
##metadata indicating changes in captioning language for search and Braille. (Google seems to be doing better by ignoring author-entered language metadata. Is rendering foreign words into Braille strong enough an use case to justify the complexity of supporting this and authoring with this data. [[User:Hsivonen|Hsivonen]] 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)) | ##metadata indicating changes in captioning language for search and Braille. (Google seems to be doing better by ignoring author-entered language metadata. Is rendering foreign words into Braille strong enough an use case to justify the complexity of supporting this and authoring with this data. [[User:Hsivonen|Hsivonen]] 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)) | ||
##semantics and style, etc. (This seems like a pretty big departure from baseline established by TV captioning. [[User:Hsivonen|Hsivonen]] 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)) [[User:aaronlev|aaronlev]] I'm not sure -- there are some higher level things such as embedding of a musical note graphic to indicate music. I believe that captioning is moving toward expressing more complex background information. | ##semantics and style, etc. (This seems like a pretty big departure from baseline established by TV captioning. [[User:Hsivonen|Hsivonen]] 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)) [[User:aaronlev|aaronlev]] I'm not sure -- there are some higher level things such as embedding of a musical note graphic to indicate music. I believe that captioning is moving toward expressing more complex background information. | ||