Category Archives: standards

Government Report: “Access to Electronic Media for the Hearing and Vision Impaired”

Digital Media, standards, video accessibility, , , ,

Today was the last day to provide a submission and input to the Australian Government’s discussion report on “Access to Electronic Media for the Hearing and Vision Impaired: Approaches for Consideration”.

The report explains the Australian Government’s existing regulatory framework for accessibility to audio-visual content on TV, digital TV, DVDs, cinemas, and the Internet, and provides an overview about what it is planning to do over the next 3-5 years.

It is interesting to read that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics about 2.67 million Australians – one in every eight people – have some form of hearing loss and 284,000 are completely or partially blind. Also, it is expected that these numbers will increase with an ageing population and obesity-linked diabetes are expected to continue to increase these numbers.

For obvious reasons, I was particularly interested in the Internet-related part of the report. It was the second-last section (number five), and to be honest, I was rather disappointed: only 3 pages of the 40 page long report concerned themselves with Internet content. Also, the main message was that “at this time the costs involved with providing captions for online content were deemed to represent an undue financial impost on a relatively new and developing service.”

Audio descriptions weren’t even touched with a stick and both were written off with “a lack of clear online caption production and delivery standard and requirements”. There is obviously a lot of truth to the statements of the report – the Internet audio-visual content industry is still fairly young compared to e.g. TV, and there are a multitude of standards rather than a single clear path.

However, I believe the report neglected to mention the new HTML5 video and audio elements and the opportunity they provide. Maybe HTML5 was excluded because it wasn’t expected to be relevant within the near future. I believe this is a big mistake and governments should pay more attention to what is happening with HTML5 audio and video and the opportunities they open for accessibility.

In the end, I made a submission because I wanted the Australian Government to wake up to the HTML5 efforts and I wanted to correct a mistake they made with claiming MPEG-2 was “not compatible with the delivery of closed audio descriptions”.

I believe a lot more can be done with accessibility for Internet content than just “monitor international developments” and industry partnership with disability representative groups. I therefore proposed to undertake trials in particular with textual audio descriptions to see if they could be produced in a similar manner to captions, which would make their cost come down enormously. Also I suggested actually aiming for WCAG 2.0 conformance within the next 5 years – which for audio-visual content means at minimum captions and audio descriptions.

You can read the report here and my 4 page long submission here.

Tutorial on HTML5 open video at LCA 2010

code, Digital Media, LCA, open codecs, Open Source, standards, video accessibility, , , , ,

During last week’s LCA, Jan Gerber, Michael Dale and I gave a 3 hour tutorial on how to publish HTML5 video in an open format.

We basically taught people how to create and publish Ogg Theora video in HTML5 Web pages and how to make them work across browsers, including much of the available tools and libraries. We’re hoping that some people will have learnt enough to include modules in CMSes such as Drupal, Joomla and WordPress, which will easily support the publishing of Ogg Theora.

I have been asked to share the material that we used. It consists of:

Note that if you would like to walk through the exercises, you should install the following software beforehand:

You might need to look for packages of your favourite OS (e.g. Windows or Mac, Ubuntu or Debian).

The exercises include:

  • creating a Ogg video from an editor
  • transcoding a video using http://firefogg.org/
  • creating a poster image using OggThumb
  • writing a first HTML5 video Web page with Ogg Theora
  • publishing it on a Web Server, with correct MIME type & Duration hint
  • writing a second HTML5 video Web page with Ogg Theora & MP4 to cover Safari/Webkit
  • transcoding using ffmpeg2theora in a script
  • writing a third HTML5 video Web page with Cortado fallback
  • writing a fourth Web page using “Video for Everybody”
  • writing a fifth Web page using “mwEmbed”
  • writing a sixth Web page using firefogg for transcoding before upload
  • and a seventh one with a progress bar
  • encoding srt subtitles into an Ogg Kate track
  • writing an eighth Web page using cortado to display the Ogg Kate track

For those that would like to see the slides here immediately, a special flash embed:

Enjoy!

HTML5 video: 25% H.264 reach vs. 95% Ogg Theora reach

analytics, Digital Media, open codecs, standards, , , , ,

Vimeo started last week with a HTML5 beta test. They use the H.264 codec, probably because much of their content is already in this format through the Flash player.

But what really surprised me was their claim that roughly 25% of their users will be able to make use of their HTML5 beta test. The statement is that 25% of their users use Safari, Chrome, or IE with Chrome Frame. I wondered how they got to that number and what that generally means to the amount of support of H.264 vs Ogg Theora on the HTML5-based Web.

According to Statcounter’s browser market share statistics, the percentage of browsers that support HTML5 video is roughly: 31.1%, as summed up from Firefox 3.5+ (22.57%), Chrome 3.0+ (5.21%), and Safari 4.0+ (3.32%) (Opera’s recent release is not represented yet).

Out of those 31.1%,

8.53% browsers support H.264

and

27.78% browsers support Ogg Theora.

Given these numbers, Vimeo must assume that roughly 16% of their users have Chrome Frame in IE installed. That would be quite a number, but it may well be that their audience is special.

So, how is Ogg Theora support doing in comparison, if we allow such browser plugins to be counted?

With an installation of XiphQT, Safari can be turned into a browser that supports Ogg Theora. The Chome Frame installation will also turn IE into a Ogg Theora supporting browser. These could get the browser support for Ogg Theora up to 45%. Compare this to a claimed 48% of MS Silverlight support.

But we can do even better for Ogg Theora. If we use the Java Cortado player as a fallback inside the video element, we can capture all those users that have Java installed, which could be as high as 90%, taking Ogg Theora support potentially up to 95%, almost up to the claimed 99% of Adobe Flash.

I’m sure all these numbers are disputable, but it’s an interesting experiment with statistics and tells us that right now, Ogg Theora has better browser support than H.264.

UPDATE: I was told this article sounds aggressive. By no means am I trying to be aggressive – I am stating the numbers as they are right now, because there is a lot of confusion in the market. People believe they reach less audience if they publish in Ogg Theora compared to H.264. I am trying to straighten this view.

Video Streaming from Linux.conf.au

Digital Media, FOMS, LCA, open codecs, Open Source, standards, , , , , , ,

You probably heard it already: Linux.conf.au is live streaming its video in a Microsoft proprietary format.

Fortunately, there is now a re-broadcast that you can get in an open format from http://stream.v2v.cc:8000/ . It comes from a server in Europe, but relies on transcoding here in New Zealand, so it may not be completely reliable.

UPDATE: A second server is now also available from the US at http://repeater.xiph.org:8000/.

Today, the down under open source / Linux conference linux.conf.au in Wellington started with the announcement that every talk and mini-conf will be live streamed to the Internet and later published online. That’s an awesome achievement!

However, minutes after the announcement, I was very disappointed to find out that the streams are actually provided in a proprietary format and through a proprietary streaming protocol: a Microsoft streaming service that provides Windows media streams.

Why stream an open source conference in a proprietary format with proprietary software? If we cannot use our own technologies for our own conferences, how will we get the rest of the world to use them?

I must say, I am personally embarrassed, because I was part of several audio/video teams of previous LCAs that have managed to record and stream content in open formats and with open media software. I would have helped get this going, but wasn’t aware of the situation.

I am also the main organiser of the FOMS Workshop (Foundations of Open Media Software) that ran the week before LCA and brought some of the core programmers in open media software into Wellington, most of which are also attending LCA. We have the brains here and should be able to get this going.

Fortunately, the published content will be made available in Ogg Theora/Vorbis. So, it’s only the publicly available stream that I am concerned about.

Speaking with the organisers, I can somewhat understand how this came to be. They took the “easy” way of delegating the video work to an external company. Even though this company is an expert in open source and networking, their media streaming customers are all using Flash or Windows media software, which are current de-facto standards and provide extra features such as DRM. It seems apart from linux.conf.au there were no requests on them for streaming Ogg Theora/Vorbis yet. Their existing infrastructure includes CDN distribution and CDN providers certainly typically don’t provide Ogg Theora/Vorbis support or Icecast streaming.

So, this is actually a problem founded in setting up streaming through a professional service rather than through the community. The way in which this was set up at other events was to get together a group of volunteers that provided streaming reflectors for free. In this way, a community-created CDN is built that can deal with the streams. That there are no professional CDN providers available yet that provide Icecast support is a sign that there is a gap in the market.

But phear not – a few of the FOMS folk got together to fix the situation.

It involved setting up Icecast streams for each room’s video stream. Since there is no access to the raw video stream, there is a need to transcode the video from proprietary codecs to the open Ogg Theora/Vorbis format.

To do this legally, a purchase of the codec libraries from Fluendo was necessary, which cost a whopping EURO 28 and covers all the necessary patent licenses. The glue to get the videos from mms to icecast streams is a GStreamer pipeline which I leave others to talk about.

Now, we have all the streams from the conference available as Ogg Theora/Video streams, we can also publish them in HTML5 video elements. Check out this Web page which has all the video streams together on a single page. Note that the connections may be a bit dodgy and some drop-outs may occur.

Further, let me recommend the Multimedia Miniconf at linux.conf.au, which will take place tomorrow, Tuesday 19th January. The Miniconf has decided to add a talk about “How to stream you conference with open codecs” to help educate any potential future conference organisers and point out the software that helps solve these issues.

UPDATE: I should have stated that I didn’t actually do any of the technical work: it was all done by Ralph Giles, Jan Gerber, and Jan Schmidt.

Manifests for exposing the structure of a Composite Media Resource

Digital Media, standards, video accessibility, , , , , , , ,

In the previous post I explained that there is a need to expose the tracks of a time-linear media resource to the user agent (UA). Here, I want to look in more detail at different possibilities of how to do so, their advantages and disadvantages.

Note: A lot of this has come out of discussions I had at the recent W3C TPAC and is still in flux, so I am writing this to start discussions and brainstorm.

Declarative Syntax vs JavaScript API

We can expose a media resource’s tracks either through a JavaScript function that can loop through the tracks and provide access to the tracks and their features, or we can do this through declarative syntax.

Using declarative syntax has the advantage of being available even if JavaScript is disabled in a UA. The markup can be parsed easily and default displays can be prepared without having to actually decode the media file(s).

OTOH, it has the disadvantage that it may not necessarily represent what is actually in the binary resource, but instead what the Web developer assumed was in the resource (or what he forgot to update). This may lead to a situation where a “404” may need to be given on a media track.

A further disadvantage is that when somebody copies the media element onto another Web page, together with all the track descriptions, and then the original media resource is changed (e.g. a subtitle track is added), this has not the desired effect, since the change does not propagate to the other Web page.

For these reasons, I thought that a JavaScript interface was preferable over declarative syntax.

However, recent discussions, in particular with some accessibility experts, have convinced me that declarative syntax is preferable, because it allows the creation of a menu for turning tracks on/off without having to even load the media file. Further, declarative syntax allows to treat multiple files and “native tracks” of a virtual media resource in an identical manner.

Extending Existing Declarative Syntax

The HTML5 media elements already have declarative syntax to specify multiple source media files for media elements. The <source> element is typically used to list video in mpeg4 and ogg format for support in different browsers, but has also been envisaged for different screensize and bandwidth encodings.

The <source> elements are generally meant to list different resources that contribute towards the media element. In that respect, let’s try using it for declaring a manifest of tracks of the virtual media resource on an example:

  <video>
    <source id='av1' src='video.3gp' type='video/mp4' media='mobile' lang='en'
                     role='media' >
    <source id='av2' src='video.mp4' type='video/mp4' media='desktop' lang='en'
                     role='media' >
    <source id='av3' src='video.ogv' type='video/ogg' media='desktop' lang='en'
                     role='media' >
    <source id='dub1' src='video.ogv?track=audio[de]' type='audio/ogg' lang='de'
                     role='dub' >
    <source id='dub2' src='audio_ja.oga' type='audio/ogg' lang='ja'
                     role='dub' >
    <source id='ad1' src='video.ogv?track=auddesc[en]' type='audio/ogg' lang='en'
                     role='auddesc' >
    <source id='ad2' src='audiodesc_de.oga' type='audio/ogg' lang='de'
                     role='auddesc' >
    <source id='cc1' src='video.mp4?track=caption[en]' type='application/ttaf+xml'
                     lang='en' role='caption' >
    <source id='cc2' src='video.ogv?track=caption[de]' type='text/srt; charset="ISO-8859-1"'
                     lang='de' role='caption' >
    <source id='cc3' src='caption_ja.ttaf' type='application/ttaf+xml' lang='ja'
                     role='caption' >
    <source id='sign1' src='signvid_ase.ogv' type='video/ogg; codecs="theora"'
                     media='desktop' lang='ase' role='sign' >
    <source id='sign2' src='signvid_gsg.ogv' type='video/ogg; codecs="theora"'
                     media='desktop' lang='gsg' role='sign' >
    <source id='sign3' src='signvid_sfs.ogv' type='video/ogg; codecs="theora"'
                     media='desktop' lang='sfs' role='sign' >
    <source id='tad1' src='tad_en.srt' type='text/srt; charset="ISO-8859-1"'
                     lang='en' role='tad' >
    <source id='tad2' src='video.ogv?track=tad[de]' type='text/srt; charset="ISO-8859-1"'
                     lang='de' role='tad' >
    <source id='tad3' src='tad_ja.srt' type='text/srt; charset="EUC-JP"' lang='ja'
                     role='tad' >
  </video>

Note that this somewhat ignores my previously proposed special itext tag for handling text tracks. I am doing this here to experiment with a more integrative approach with the virtual media resource idea from the previous post. This may well be a better solution than a specific new text-related element. Most of the attributes of the itext element are, incidentally, covered.

You will also notice that some of the tracks are references to tracks inside binary media files using the Media Fragment URI specification while others link to full files. An example is video.ogv?track=auddesc[en]. So, this is a uniform means of exposing all the tracks that are part of a (virtual) media resource to the UA, no matter whether in-band or in external files. It actually relies on the UA or server being able to resolve these URLs.

“type” attribute

“media” and “type” are existing attributes of the <source> element in HTML5 and meant to help the UA determine what to do with the referenced resource. The current spec states:

The “type” attribute gives the type of the media resource, to help the user agent determine if it can play this media resource before fetching it.

The word “play” might need to be replaced with “decode” to cover several different MIME types.

The “type” attribute was also extended with the possibility to add the “charset” MIME parameter of a linked text resource – this is particularly important for SRT files, which don’t handle charsets very well. It avoids having to add an additional attribute and is analogous to the “codecs” MIME parameter used by audio and video resources.

“media” attribute

Further, the spec states:

The “media” attribute gives the intended media type of the media resource, to help the user agent determine if this media resource is useful to the user before fetching it. Its value must be a valid media query.

The “mobile” and “desktop” values are hints that I’ve used for simplicity reasons. They could be improved by giving appropriate bandwidth limits and width/height values, etc. Other values could be different camera angles such as topview, frontview, backview. The media query aspect has to be looked into in more depth.

“lang” attribute

The above example further uses “lang” and “role” attributes:

The “lang” attribute is an existing global attribute of HTML5, which typically indicates the language of the data inside the element. Here, it is used to indicate the language of the referenced resource. This is possibly not quite the best name choice and should maybe be called “hreflang”, which is already used in multiple other elements to signify the language of the referenced resource.

“role” attribute

The “role” attribute is also an existing attribute in HTML5, included from ARIA. It currently doesn’t cover media resources, but could be extended. The suggestion here is to specify the roles of the different media tracks – the ones I have used here are:

  • “media”: a main media resource – typically contains audio and video and possibly more
  • “dub”: a audio track that provides an alternative dubbed language track
  • “auddesc”: a audio track that provides an additional audio description track
  • “caption”: a text track that provides captions
  • “sign”: a video-only track that provides an additional sign language video track
  • “tad”: a text track that provides textual audio descriptions to be read by a screen reader or a braille device

Further roles could be “music”, “speech”, “sfx” for audio tracks, “subtitle”, “lyrics”, “annotation”, “chapters”, “overlay” for text tracks, and “alternate” for a alternate main media resource, e.g. a different camera angle.

Track activation

The given attributes help the UA decide what to display.

It will firstly find out from the “type” attribute if it is capable of decoding the track.

Then, the UA will find out from the “media” query, “role”, and “lang” attributes whether a track is relevant to its user. This will require checking the capabilities of the device, network, and the user preferences.

Further, it could be possible for Web authors to influence whether a track is displayed or not through CSS parameters on the <source> element: “display: none” or “visibility: hidden/visible”.

Examples for track activation that a UA would undertake using the example above:

Given a desktop computer with Firefox, German language preferences, captions and sign language activated, the UA will fetch the original video at video.ogv (for Firefox), the German caption track at video.ogv?track=caption[de], and the German sign language track at signvid_gsg.ogv (maybe also the German dubbed audio track at video.ogv?track=audio[de], which would then replace the original one).

Given a desktop computer with Safari, English language preferences and audio descriptions activated, the UA will fetch the original video at video.mp4 (for Safari) and the textual audio description at tad_en.srt to be displayed through the screen reader, since it cannot decode the Ogg audio description track at video.ogv?track=auddesc[en].

Also, all decodeable tracks could be exposed in a right-click menu and added on-demand.

Display styling

Default styling of these tracks could be:

  • video or alternate video in the video display area,
  • sign language probably as picture-in-picture (making it useless on a mobile and only of limited use on the desktop),
  • captions/subtitles/lyrics as overlays on the bottom of the video display area (or whatever the caption format prescribes),
  • textual audio descriptions as ARIA live regions hidden behind the video or off-screen.

Multiple audio tracks can always be played at the same time.

The Web author could also define the display area for a track through CSS styling and the UA would then render the data into that area at the rate that is required by the track.

How good is this approach?

The advantage of this new proposal is that it builds basically on existing HTML5 components with minimal additions to satisfy requirements for content selection and accessibility of media elements. It is a declarative approach to the multi-track media resource challenge.

However, it leaves most of the decision on what tracks are alternatives of/additions to each other and which tracks should be displayed to the UA. The UA makes an informed decision because it gets a lot of information through the attributes, but it still has to make decisions that may become rather complex. Maybe there needs to be a grouping level for alternative tracks and additional tracks – similar to what I did with the second itext proposal, or similar to the <switch> and <par> elements of SMIL.

A further issue is one that is currently being discussed within the Media Fragments WG: how can you discover the track composition and the track naming/uses of a particular media resource? How, e.g., can a Web author on another Web site know how to address the tracks inside your binary media resource? A HTML specification like the above can help. But what if that doesn’t exist? And what if the file is being used offline?

Alternative Manifest descriptions

The need to manifest the track composition of a media resource is not a new one. Many other formats and applications had to deal with these challenges before – some have defined and published their format.

I am going to list a few of these formats here with examples. They could inspire a next version of the above proposal with grouping elements.

Microsoft ISM files (SMIL subpart)

With the release of IIS7, Microsoft introduced “Smooth Streaming”, which uses chunking on files on the server to deliver adaptive streaming to Silverlight clients over HTTP. To inform a smooth streaming client of the tracks available for a media resource, Microsoft defined ism files: IIS Smooth Streaming Server Manifest files.

This is a short example – a longer one can be found here:

<?xml version=

The model of a time-linear media resource for HTML5

Digital Media, standards, video accessibility, , , , ,

HTML5 has been criticised for not having a timing model of the media resource in its new media elements. This article spells it out and builds a framework of how we should think about HTML5 media resources. Note: these are my thoughts and nothing offical from HTML5 – just conclusions I have drawn from the specs and from discussions I had.

What is a time-linear media resource?

In HTML5 and also in the Media Fragment URI specification we deal only with audio and video resources that represent a single timeline exclusively. Let’s call such Web resources a time-linear media resource.

The Media Fragment requirements document actually has a very nice picture to describe such resources – replicated here for your convenience:

Model of a Media Resource

The resource can potentially consist of any number of audio, video, text, image or other time-aligned data tracks. All these tracks adhere to a single timeline, which tends to be defined by the main audio or video track, while other tracks have been created to synchronise with these main tracks.

This model matches with the world view of video on YouTube and any other video hosting service. It also matches with video used on any video streaming service.

Background on the choice of “time-linear”

I’ve deliberately chosen the word “time-linear” because we are talking about a single, gap-free, linear timeline here and not multiple timelines that represent the single resource.

The word “linear” is, however, somewhat over-used, since the introduction of digital systems into the world of analog film introduced what is now known as “non-linear video editing”. This term originates from the fact that non-linear video editing systems don’t have to linearly spool through film material to get to a edit point, but can directly access any frame in the footage as easily as any other.

When talking about a time-linear media resource, we are referring to a digital resource and therefore direct access to any frame in the footage is possible. So, a time-linear media resource will still be usable within a non-linear editing process.

As a Web resource, a time-linear media resource is not addressed as a sequence of frames or samples, since these are encoding specific. Rather, the resource is handled abstractly as an object that has track and time dimensions – and possibly spatial dimensions where image or video tracks are concerned. The framerate encoding of the resource itself does not matter and could, in fact, be changed without changing the resource’s time, track and spatial dimensions and thus without changing the resource’s address.

Interactive Multimedia

The term “time-linear” is used to specify the difference between a media resource that follows a single timeline, in contrast to one that deals with multiple timelines, linked together based on conditions, events, user interactions, or other disruptions to make a fully interactive multi-media experience. Thus, media resources in HTML5 and Media Fragments do not qualify as interactive multimedia themselves because they are not regarded as a graph of interlinked media resources, but simply as a single time-linear resource.

In this respect, time-linear media resources are also different from the kind of interactive mult-media experiences that an Adobe Shockwave Flash, Silverlight, or a SMIL file can create. These can go far beyond what current typical video publishing and communication applications on the Web require and go far beyond what the HTML5 media elements were created for. If your application has a need for multiple timelines, it may be necessary to use SMIL, Silverlight, or Adobe Flash to create it.

Note that the fact that the HTML5 media elements are part of the Web, and therefore expose states and integrate with JavaScript, provides Web developers with a certain control over the playback order of a time-linear media resource. The simple functions pause(), play(), and the currentTime attribute allow JavaScript developers to control the current playback offset and whether to stop or start playback. Thus, it is possible to interrupt a playback and present, e.g. a overlay text with a hyperlink, or an additional media resource, or anything else a Web developer can imagine right in the middle of playing back a media resource.

In this way, time-linear media resources can contribute towards an interactive multi-media experience, created by a Web developer through a combination of multiple media resources, image resources, text resources and Web pages. The limitations of this approach are not yet clear at this stage – how far will such a constructed multi-media experience be able to take us and where does it become more complicated than an Adobe Flash, Silverlight, or SMIL experience. The answer to this question will, I believe, become clearer through the next few years of HTML5 usage and further extensions to HTML5 media may well be necessary then.

Proper handling of time-linear media resources in HTML5

At this stage, however, we have already determined several limitations of the existing HTML5 media elements that require resolution without changing the time-linear nature of the resource.

1. Expose structure

Above all, there is a need to expose the above painted structure of a time-linear media resource to the Web page. Right now, when the <video> element links to a video file, it only accesses the main audio and video tracks, decodes them and displays them. The media framework that sits underneath the user agent (UA) and does the actual decoding for the UA might know about other tracks and might even decode, e.g. a caption track and display it by default, but the UA has no means of knowing this happens and controlling this.

We need a means to expose the available tracks inside a time-linear media resource and allow the UA some control over it – e.g. to choose whether to turn on/off a caption track, to choose which video track to display, or to choose which dubbed audio track to display.

I’ll discuss in another article different approaches on how to expose the structure. Suffice for now that we recognise the need to expose the tracks.

2. Separate the media resource concept from actual files

A HTML page is a sequence of HTML tags delivered over HTTP to a UA. A HTML page is a Web resource. It can be created dynamically and contain links to other Web resources such as images which complete its presentation.

We have to move to a similar “virtual” view of a media resource. Typically, a video is a single file with a video and an audio track. But also typically, caption and subtitle tracks for such a video file are stored in other files, possibly even on other servers. The caption or subtitle tracks are still in sync with the video file and therefore are actual tracks of that time-linear media resource. There is no reason to treat this differently to when the caption or subtitle track is inside the media file.

When we separate the media resource concept from actual files, we will find it easier to deal with time-linear media resources in HTML5.

3. Track activation and Display styling

A time-linear media resource, when regarded completely abstractly, can contain all sorts of alternative and additional tracks.

For example, the existing <source> elements inside a video or audio element are currently mostly being used to link to alternative encodings of the main media resource – e.g. either in mpeg4 or ogg format. We can regard these as alternative tracks within the same (virtual) time-linear media resource.

Similarly, the <source> elements have also been suggested to be used for alternate encodings, such as for mobile and Web. Again, these can be regarded as alternative tracks of the same time-linear media resource.

Another example are subtitle tracks for a main media resource, which are currently discussed to be referenced using the <itext> element. These are in principle alternative tracks amongst themselves, but additional to the main media resource. Also, some people are actually interested in displaying two subtitle tracks at the same time to learn translations.

Another example are sign language tracks, which are video tracks that can be regarded as an alternative to the audio tracks for hard-of-hearing users. They are then additional video tracks to the original video track and it is not clear how to display more than one video track. Typically, sign language tracks are displayed as picture-in-picture, but on the Web, where video is usually displayed in a small area, this may not be optimal.

As you can see, when deciding which tracks need to be displayed one needs to analyse the relationships between the tracks. Further, user preferences need to come into play when activating tracks. Finally, the user should be able to interactively activate tracks as well.

Once it is clear, what tracks need displaying, there is still the challenge of how to display them. It should be possible to provide default displays for typical track types, and allow Web authors to override these default display styles since they know what actual tracks their resource is dealing with.

While the default display seems to be typically an issue left to the UA to solve, the display overrides are typically dealt with on the Web through CSS approaches. How we solve this is for another time – right now we can just state the need for algorithms for track activiation and for default and override styling.

Hypermedia

To make media resources a prime citizens on the Web, we have to go beyond simply replicating digital media files. The Web is based on hyperlinks between Web resources, and that includes hyperlinking out of resources (e.g. from any word within a Web page) as well as hyperlinking into resources (e.g. fragment URIs into Web pages).

To turn video and audio into hypervideo and hyperaudio, we need to enable hyperlinking into and out of them.

Hyperlinking into media resources is fortunately already being addressed by the W3C Media Fragments working group, which also regards media resources in the same way as HTML5. The addressing schemes under consideration are the following:

  • temporal fragment URI addressing: address a time offset/region of a media resource
  • spatial fragment URI addressing: address a rectangular region of a media resource (where available)
  • track fragment URI addressing: address one or more tracks of a media resource
  • named fragment URI addressing: address a named region of a media resource
  • a combination of the above addressing schemes

With such addressing schemes available, there is still a need to hook up the addressing with the resource. For the temporal and the spatial dimension, resolving the addressing into actual byte ranges is relatively obvious across any media type. However, track addressing and named addressing need to be resolved. Track addressing will become easier when we solve the above stated requirement of exposing the track structure of a media resource. The name definition requires association of an id or name with temporal offsets, spatial areas, or tracks. The addressing scheme will be available soon – whether our media resources can support them is another challenge to solve.

Finally, hyperlinking out of media resources is something that is not generally supported at this stage. Certainly, some types of media resources – QuickTime, Flash, MPEG4, Ogg – support the definition of tracks that can contain HTML marked-up text and thus can also contain hyperlinks. But standardisation in this space has not really happened yet. It seems to be clear that hyperlinks out of media files will come from some type of textual track. But a standard format for such time-aligned text tracks doesn’t yet exist. This is a challenge to be addressed in the near future.

Summary

The Web has always tried to deal with new extensions in the simplest possible manner, providing support for the majority of current use cases and allowing for the few extraordinary use cases to be satisfied by use of JavaScript or embedding of external, more complex objects.

With the new media elements in HTML5, this is no different. So far, the most basic need has been satisfied: that of including simple video and audio files into Web pages. However, many basic requirements are not being satisfied yet: accessibility needs, codec choice, device-independence needs are just some of the core requirements that make it important to extend our view of <audio> and <video> to a broader view of a Web media resource without changing the basic understanding of an audio and video resource.

This post has created the concept of a “media resource”, where we keep the simplicity of a single timeline. At the same time, it has tried to classify the list of shortcomings of the current media elements in a way that will help us address these shortcomings in a Web-conformant means.

If we accept the need to expose the structure of a media resource, the need to separate the media resource concept from actual files, the need for an approach to track activation, and the need to deal with styling of displayed tracks, we can take the next steps and propose solutions for these.

Further, understanding the structure of a media resources allows us to start addressing the harder questions of how to associate events with a media resource, how to associate a navigable structure with a media resource, or how to turn media resources into hypermedia.

HTML5 Video element discussions at TPAC meetings

Digital Media, open codecs, standards, video accessibility, , , , , , ,

Last week’s TPAC (2009 W3C Technical Plenary / Advisory Committee) meetings were my second time at a TPAC and I found myself becoming highly involved with the progress on accessibility on the HTML5 video element. There were in particular two meetings of high relevanct: the Video Accessibility workshop and Friday’s HTML5 breakout group on the video element.

HTML5 Video Accessibility Workshop

The week started on Sunday with the “HTML5 Video Accessibility workshop” at Stanford University, organised by John Foliot and Dave Singer. They brought together a substantial number of people all representing a variety of interest groups. Everyone got their chance to present their viewpoint – check out the minutes of the meeting for a complete transcript.

The list of people and their discussion topics were as follows:

Accessibility Experts

  • Janina Sajka, chair of WAI Protocols and Formats: represented the vision-impaired community and expressed requirements for a deeply controllable access interface to audio-visual content, preferably in a structured manner similar to DAISY.
  • Sally Cain, RNIB, Member of W3C PF group: expressed a deep need for audio descriptions, which are often overlooked besides captions.
  • Ken Harrenstien, Google: has worked on captioning support for video.google and YouTube and shared his experiences, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRS8MkLhQmM, and automated translation.
  • Victor Tsaran, Yahoo! Accessibility Manager: joined for a short time out of interest.

Practicioners

  • John Foliot, professor at Stanford Uni: showed a captioning service that he set up at Stanford University to enable lecturers to publish more accessible video – it uses humans for transcription, but automated tools to time-align, and provides a Web interface to the staff.
  • Matt May, Adobe: shared what Adobe learnt about accessibility in Flash – in particular that an instream-only approach to captions was a naive approach and that external captions are much more flexible, extensible, and can fit into current workflows.
  • Frank Olivier, Microsoft: attended to listen and learn.

Technologists

  • Pierre-Antoine Champin from Liris (France), who was not able to attend, sent a video about their research work on media accessibility using automatic and manual annotation.
  • Hironobu Takagi, IBM Labs Tokyo, general chair for W4A: demonstrated a text-based audio description system combined with a high-quality, almost human-sounding speech synthesizer.
  • Dick Bulterman, Researcher at CWI in Amsterdam, co-chair of SYMM (group at W3C doing SMIL): reported on 14 years of experience with multimedia presentations and SMIL (slides) and the need to make temporal and spatial synchronisation explicit to be able to do the complex things.
  • Joakim S

FOMS and LCA Multimedia Miniconf

Digital Media, FOMS, LCA, open codecs, Open Source, standards, video accessibility, , , ,

If you haven’t proposed a presentation yet, got ahead and register yourself for:

FOMS (Foundations of Open Media Software workshop) at
http://www.foms-workshop.org/foms2010/pmwiki.php/Main/CFP

LCA Multimedia Miniconf at
http://www.annodex.org/events/lca2010_mmm/pmwiki.php/Main/CallForP

It’s already November and there’s only Christmas between now and the conferences!

I’m personally hoping for many discussions about HTML5 <video> and <audio>, including what to do with multitrack files, with cue ranges, and captions. These should also be relevant to other open media frameworks – e.g. how should we all handle multitrack sign language tracks?

But there are heaps of other topics to discuss and anyone doing any work with open media software will find a fruitful discussions at FOMS.

Dealing with multi-track video (and audio)

Digital Media, standards, video accessibility, , ,

We are slowly approaching the stage where we want to make multi-track video of the following type available and accessible:

  • original video track
  • original audio track
  • dubbed audio tracks in n different languages
  • audio description track in n different langauges
  • sign language video tracks in n different sign langauges
  • caption tracks in n different langauges
  • multiple other time-aligned text tracks in different langauges
  • audio and video track from different camera angles
  • music and speech tracks can be separate
  • different quality tracks are available
  • accompanying images, e.g. slides for a presentation

One of the issues with such a sizeable number of tracks is how to display them. Some of them are alternatives, some of them additions. Sign language is typically presented in a PiP (picture-in-picture) approach. If we have a music and a speech (or singing) track, we may want to have control over removing certain tracks – e.g. to be able to do karaoke. Caption and subtitle tracks in the same language are probably alternatives, while in different languages they could be additions. It is not a trivial challenge to handle such complex files in an application.

At this point, I am only trying to solve a sub-challenge. As we talk about a particular track in a multi-track media file, we will want to identify it by name. Should there be a standard for naming the track, so that we can e.g. address them by a URL, e.g. with the intention of only delivering a subset of tracks from the larger file? We could introduce that for Ogg – but maybe there is an opportunity to do this across file formats?

To find some answers to these and related questions, I want to discuss two approaches.

The first approach is a simple numbering approach. In it, the audio, video, and annotation tracks are all ordered and then numbered through. This will result in the following sets of track names: video[0] … [n], audio[0] … [n], timed text[0] … [n], and possibly even timed images[0] … [n]. This approach is simple, easy to understand, and only requires ordering the tracks within their types. It allows addressing of a particular track – e.g. as required by the media fragment URI scheme for track addressing. However, it does not allow identification of alternatives, additions, or presentation styles.

Should alternatives, additions, and presentation styles be encoded in the name of track? Or should this information go into a meta description area of the multi-track video? Something like skeleton in Ogg? Or should it go a step further and be buried in an external information file such as an m3u file (or ROE for Ogg)?

I want to experiment here with the naming scheme and what we would need to specify to be able to decide which tracks to ignore and which to combine for a presentation. And I want to ask for your comments and advice.

This requires listing exactly what types of content tracks we may have to deal with.

In the video space, we have at minimum the following track types:

  • main video content – with alternative camera angles
  • subsidiary video content – with alternative camera angles
  • sign language videos – in alternative languages

Alternatives are defined by camera angle and language. Also, each track can be made available in a different quality. I’d also regard additional image content, such as slides in a presentation, into subsidiary video content. So, here we could use a scheme such as video_[main,side,sign]_language_angle.

In the audio space, we have at minimum the following track types:

  • main audio content – in alternative languages
  • background audio content – e.g.music, SFX, noise
  • foreground speech or singing content – in alternative languages
  • audio descriptions – in alternative languages

Alternatives are defined by language and content type. Again, each track can be made available in a different quality. Here we could use a scheme such as audio_type_language.

In the text space, we have at minimum the following track types:

  • subtitles – in different languages
  • captions – in different languages
  • textual audio descriptions – in different languages
  • other time-aligned text – in different languages

Alternatives are defined by language and content type – e.g. lyrics, captions and subtitles really compete for the same screen space. Here we could use a scheme such as text_type_language.

A generic track naming scheme
It seems, the generic naming scheme of

<content_type>_<track_type>_<language> [_<angle>]

can cover all cases.

Are there further track types, further alternatives I have missed? What do you think?