[Athen] ATHEN's response to the section 508 update

Sean J Keegan skeegan at stanford.edu
Wed Mar 7 13:38:59 PST 2012


The 404 and 404.1 checkpoints require a functional outcome (i.e., a
success criterion) - that being, that ICT shall not remove
non-proprietary information provided for accessibility or restore it
upon delivery.

The way I interpret the 404 checkpoints is that it really doesn't matter
what technical method is used to provide accessibility data in media,
just make sure that the relevant ICT does not remove it (or, if
appropriate, restores it).

I think it is beyond the scope of these checkpoints to make
recommendations regarding new media creation and requiring accessibility
data to be included in such content. That language is already in place
in other locations in the 508 standard.

I think we run into dangerous ground by recommending a specific
technology standard, or by requesting such a standard, as that could
result in limitations to future technology implementations (what happens
when someone comes up with a better standard?). With respect to an
advisory note, I think we do best if we can focus on the need for a
functional outcome and to include the "advice" as to considerations if
using such technology.

I do realize that there is confusion amongst consumers regarding the
identification of either captioned vs. subtitles vs. subtitled for the
deaf and hard-of-hearing, but I am not sure if this is the most
appropriate place to resolve that issue. Additionally, as long as the
accessibility information is not being removed (and it conforms to
checkpoints 409.1.1 and 409.1.2), then do we need technical standards
for presenting such accessibility data?

So, I would keep it brief - perhaps just use the first paragraph?

"An advisory should be included noting that video projection systems may
not include a captioning decoder and that without such a decoder,
captions will not be displayed. For situations in which a video
projection system does not include a captioning decoder, a separate
decoder must be included in the audio-visual system in order for the
caption information to be displayed."


Perhaps I am just beating a dead horse at this point?

take care,
sean



On 3/7/12 12:48 PM, Humbert, Joseph A wrote:

> Sean, how do you feel your suggestion compares to mine? Replace, combined, rewrite?

>

> An advisory should be included noting that many video projection systems do not include captioning decoders and that without decoders, captions cannot be shown unless there is a decoder somewhere else in the AV set-up.

>

> An advisory should be included to recommend that as new media is created, accessibility data must be provided based on a specified standard. For example, when DVDs were first developed, captioning was not taken into consideration. This lack of consideration led to multiple implementations of providing textual information on-screen by DVD technology manufacturers, resulting in ambiguity in both the names for these implementations (subtitles, subtitles for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, captions, etc.) and the underlying technologies (Line-21 vs. all the digital captioning and subtitle formats available). For the consumer, this resulted in uncertainty of exactly what is being provided when a DVD is labeled as being "captioned", "subtitled", or other. If the Access Board creates or references the above standard, the consumer of the media will have a clear idea of the accessibility data included on it.

>

> - Joe

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: athen-list-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu [mailto:athen-list-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Sean J Keegan

> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:33 PM

> To: Access Technology Higher Education Network

> Subject: Re: [Athen] ATHEN's response to the section 508 update

>

> Okay - that's what I thought was meant. The sentences "An advisory should be included to recommend that as new media is created, accessibility data must be included," and the concluding sentence "There is no standard" seemed to be speaking to a different issue (and I don't think we want to go down the road of specifying a technical standard).

>

> Suggested alternative:

> ********

> "An advisory should be included noting that video projection systems may not include a captioning decoder and that without such a decoder, captions will not be displayed. For situations in which a video projection system does not include a captioning decoder, a separate decoder must be included in the audio-visual system in order for the caption information to be displayed.

>

> For example, when DVDs were first developed, captioning was not addressed resulting in various captioning formats, including Line-21 formatted captions, subtitles for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and subtitle tracks. Even if DVD media included the appropriate accessibility data, it may not have been capable of presenting such information to the user due to limitations in the audio-visual playback system.

>

> ********

>

> Thoughts?

>

> Take care,

> Sean

>




More information about the athen-list mailing list