Accessibility/Captioning Work Plan

To do:

1. 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"
2. Add technology specifics -- any specifics we need
3. Is audio description outside the scope? Is the focus captioning only? Hsivonen 09:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Work plan

1. Determine which captioning format should be supported in Mozilla for the natively-supported Ogg video. This needs to take into account x, y and z. DFXP? CMML? (What are the known pros and cons)
2. 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
3. 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.
4. Explore the need to support the following features and ensure support when found necessary:
   1. social caption creation (This poses very different requirements than the idea of making video files intrinsically accessible. Hsivonen 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
   2. 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. Hsivonen 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
   3. semantics and style, etc. (This seems like a pretty big departure from baseline established by TV captioning. Hsivonen 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)) 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.
5. Ensure captioning solution is compatible with current authoring and if possible, video conversion tools, so that current and future content can easily use the solution
6. Ensure the solution is compatible with both existing media repurposed for the Internet (i.e., originating in broadcast and cable TV environments and physical media like DVDs and theatrical motion pictures) and media originally developed for Internet distribution, including user-generated content.
7. Ensure the solition incorporates the expressed needs and preferences of Internet-based media users with sensory disabilities. (( Aaron: what are these? Can we express these up front? WGBH must already know this info, e.g. why would it change based on internet vs. brodcast? ))
8. Ensure all solutions, documentation and tests developed are friendly to open source contributors and clean of known IP conflicts
9. Participate in the relevant deliberations, meetings, standards development activities and proposed work products of HTML 5 WG.
10. Determine what can be done about supporting captioning when an external back end (gstreamer, QuickTime, DirectShow) is in use. (MP4 containers are the most likely external back end case, so 3GPP Timed Text is a potential format candidate in that case.)
11. Build a complete set of open-licensed documentation and test cases for developers and content creators. In general, reach out to developers implementing captioning solutions for the web and assure that issues of captioning (for deaf and hard-of-hearing people) and description (for blind and visually impaired people) are taken into account and are well-understood.
12. Test solutions and file bugs in databases for each browser to drive the necessary work. Attach relevant test cases and documentation. Make sure the developers know what to fix.

Measurements of Success (previous list)

1. Implementation of effective and implementable media access standards within video-on-the-web standards developments
2. Browser implementations which incorporate accessibility features outlined, specified, or otherwise output from groups.
3. Wider awareness and understanding of media access on the Internet and greater understanding of the needs of people with disabilities as they utilize Internet-based media.