[Ogg a11y] <video> + srt

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

Hi Geoff,

I think we do not disagree on anything - apart from your proposal to
only support one format.

Why I am against just supporting one format is that I think we will
see huge developments in the space of text codecs in the next years
and we will get a format that is less bloated and more capable than
DFXP. I don't want to inhibit uptake of such a format right from the
start.

I'm suggesting to support srt and dfxp in the meantime, but to start
with the simpler format first. That's all.

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed at wgbh.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, Silvia:
>
> Comments below.
>
> Geoff
> WGBH/NCAM
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer [silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 4:42 PM
> To: Geoff Freed
> Cc: Chris Double; accessibility at xiph.org
> Subject: Re: [Ogg a11y] <video> + srt
>
> Geoff,
>
> The biggest problem with DFXP is that all players that do support DFXP
> currently only implement a *subset* of DFXP - same with SMIL. Both
> specs are really complex. SMIL wasn't even built originally as a text
> codec - all annotation stuff was added over time. DFXP is only used as
> a text format, while 3GPP text as included inside Quicktime finds a
> lot more support (also being a subset of DFXP).
>
> Also, you don't seen
> people in the wild creating DFXP or SMIL files for subtitles and
> captions. They all use srt and sub, because they are trivial to
> understand and author in a text editor.
>
> ======
> GF:
> I must disagree here.  I know that MTV uses DFXP captions, and The Caption Center at WGBH creates DFXP captions for all work involving Flash.  And there are other major vendors and companies beginning to use it, or are making plans to use it soon.  And there's at least one free DFXP-authoring tool, MAGpie.
> ======
>
>
> There are specifications for srt and sub around. Not normative as in
> "provided by a widely acknowledged standards body". However, de-facto
> standards should not be ignored, when they see this wide an uptake.
>
> ======
> GF:
> I don't disagree that they're being widely used, but wide use doesn't necessarily qualify them as the best approach.  My main argument against adopting them is that there are already too many formal and informal text-display formats now.  I'd prefer that we move towards standardizing *one* approach, preferably one that offers flexibility that authors and deaf/hard-of-hearing viewers use or have asked for (color, size, font choice, etc.).  DFXP offers a good chance of satisfying many needs, it's non-proprietary and it is (or will be) an official recommendation.  Including DFXP here will be a good step towards directing everyone to a single approach.
> ======
>
> Having said all this, I'd also like to point out that I suggested to
> support DFXP (or a subset of it) as a caption format in Ogg and in
> HTML5. It's just not the first priority, since it adds little onto the
> capabilities of srt and sub that is really required by disabled
> people.
>
> ======
> GF:
> Actually, DFXP has a boatload of features that aren't available in SRT or SUB; perhaps more than necessary for straight black-background/white-text captioning, but many important features nonetheless (color, font choice, size, etc.) that can be used in general captioning and subtitling.   But again, my argument for including DFXP is that it's an approved recommendation that will satisfy many use cases.
> ======
>
> Also, I am still wary that - even though DFXP is a complex format - it
> does not satisfy all our use cases, e.g. the need for outgoing
> hyperlinks. So, a simpler but more powerful format would be a huge
> step forward for video accessibility.
>
> ======
> GF:
> I won't disagree that DFXP is a somewhat complex format, but I will argue that it provides a *bigger* step towards accessibility for deaf/hard-of-hearing audiences.
> ======
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Silvia.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed at wgbh.org> wrote:
>>
>> Well, there's NCAM's CCforFlash and ccPlayer, both of which implement a subset of DFXP; and MAGpie, which creates DFXP files.  See http://ncam.wgbh.org/webaccess/tools/index.html.  Not open source, but free.  And they're real implementations, not just on paper.
>>
>> Geoff
>> WGBH/NCAM
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: accessibility-bounces at xiph.org [accessibility-bounces at xiph.org] On Behalf Of Chris Double [chris.double at double.co.nz]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 7:41 AM
>> To: accessibility at xiph.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ogg a11y] <video> + srt
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed at wgbh.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Being formal recommendations, and therefore most likely more stable as text formats, I strongly support the inclusion of both DFXP and SMILText.
>>
>> On the other hand, these specs are huge and a major undertaking to
>> implement and get correct. Unless there is already an open source
>> reference implementation of them around it'll be quite some time
>> before they're implemented. Whereas SRT could probably be implemented
>> in less time than it takes to understand the DXFP and SMILText specs.
>>
>> Chris
>> --
>> http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accessibility mailing list
>> Accessibility at xiph.org
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accessibility mailing list
>> Accessibility at xiph.org
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility
>>
>