401
edits
(fixed image width) |
(added conclusions section) |
||
| Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
== Conclusions == | == Conclusions == | ||
The aim of the study was to "deliver a well thought-out recommendation for how to support the different types of accessibility needs for audio and video, including a specification of the actual file format(s) to use. At minimum, a Ogg solution for captions and subtitles is expected, and a means towards including sign language video tracks, audio annotations, transcripts, scripts, story boards, karaoke, metadata, and semantic annotations is proposed." | |||
This aim of the grant proposal was achieved with great success. In fact, we have gone beyond this aim and created a community at Ogg to continue addressing these issues. And we have gone far beyond a recommendation by also creating initial specifications that address each of the four identified areas of work, in particular: | |||
* for how to include subtitles into Web pages with a <video> element, | |||
* for how to encapsulate time-aligned text into Ogg, and | |||
* a format for the richer time-aligned text data. | |||
In the next step, Mozilla should look at implementing srt support into the Web browser, and in parallel further analyse the richer time-aligned text categories and their needs. In collaboration with the Xiph community, srt in Ogg should also be addressed. | |||
Given all this, the grant was a great success and the resulting study points us the way forward. | |||
edits