Category Archives: video accessibility

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?

Web Directions South 2009 talk on HTML5 video

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

Yesterday, I gave a talk on the HTML5 video element at Web Directions South.

The title was “Taking HTML5 <video> a step further” and the abstract was provided goes as follows:

This talk focuses on the efforts engaged by W3C to improve the new HTML 5 media elements with mechanisms to allow people to access multimedia content, including audio and video. Such developments are also useful beyond accessibility needs and will lead to a general improvement of the usability of media, making media discoverable and generally a prime citizen on the Web.

Silvia will discuss what is currently technically possible with the HTML5 media elements, and what is still missing. She will describe a general framework of accessibility for HTML5 media elements and present her work for the Mozilla Corporation that includes captions, subtitles, textual audio annotations, timed metadata, and other time-aligned text with the HTML5 media elements. Silvia will also discuss work of the W3C Media Fragments group to further enhance video usability and accessibility by making it possible to directly address temporal offsets in video, as well as spatial areas and tracks.

Here are my slides:

Download the pdf from here.

There was also a video recording and I will add that here as soon as it is published.

UPDATE:
The video is available on Tinyvid:

I’m not going to try and upload this 50min long video to YouTube – with it’s 10 min limit, I won’t get very far.

WebJam 2009 talk on video accessibility

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

On Wednesday evening I gave a 3 min presentation on video accessibility in HTML5 at the WebJam in Sydney. I used a video as my presentation means and explained things while playing it back. Here is the video, without my oral descriptions, but probably still useful to some. Note in particular how you can experience the issues of deaf (HoH), blind (VI) and foreign language users:

The Ogg version is here.

New proposal for captions and other timed text for HTML5

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

The first specification for how to include captions, subtitles, lyrics, and similar time-aligned text with HTML5 media elements has received a lot of feedback – probably because there are several demos available.

The feedback has encouraged me to develop a new specification that includes the concerns and makes it easier to associate out-of-band time-aligned text (i.e. subtitles stored in separate files to the video/audio file). A simple example of the new specification using srt files is this:

<video src="video.ogv" controls>
   <itextlist category="CC">
     <itext src="caption_en.srt" lang="en"/>
     <itext src="caption_de.srt" lang="de"/>
     <itext src="caption_fr.srt" lang="fr"/>
     <itext src="caption_jp.srt" lang="jp"/>
   </itextlist>
 </video>

By default, the charset of the itext file is UTF-8, and the default format is text/srt (incidentally a mime type the still needs to be registered). Also by default the browser is expected to select for display the track that matches the set default language of the browser. This has been proven to work well in the previous experiments.

Check out the new itext specification, read on to get an introduction to what has changed, and leave me your feedback if you can!

The itextlist element
You will have noticed that in comparison to the previous specification, this specification contains a grouping element called “itextlist”. This is necessary because we have to distinguish between alternative time-aligned text tracks and ones that can be additional, i.e. displayed at the same time. In the first specification this was done by inspecting each itext element’s category and grouping them together, but that resulted in much repetition and unreadable specifications.

Also, it was not clear which itext elements were to be displayed in the same region and which in different ones. Now, their styling can be controlled uniformly.

The final advantage is that association of callbacks for entering and leaving text segments as extracted from the itext elements can now be controlled from the itextlist element in a uniform manner.

This change also makes it simple for a parser to determine the structure of the menu that is created and included in the controls element of the audio or video element.

Incidentally, a patch for Firefox already exists that makes this part of the browser. It does not yet support this new itext specification, but here is a screenshot that Felipe Corr

Tracking Status of Video Accessibility Work

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

Just a brief note to let everyone know about a new wikipage I created for my Mozilla work about video accessibility, where I want to track the status and outcomes of my work. You can find it at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibility/Video_a11y_Aug09. It lists the following sections: Test File Collection, Specifications, Demo implementations using JavaScript, Related open bugs in Mozilla, and Publications.

HTML5 audio element accessibility

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

As part of my experiments in video accessibility I am also looking at the audio element. I have just finished a proof of concept for parsing Lyrics files for music in lrc format.

The demo uses Tay Zonday’s “Chocolate Rain” song both as a video with subtitles and as an audio file with lyrics. Fortunately, he published these all under a creative commons license, so I was able to use this music file. BTW: I found it really difficult to find a openly licensed music file with lyrics.

While I was at it, I also cleaned up all the old demos and now have a nice list of all demos in a central file.

Open Standards for Sign Languages

Digital Media, Open Source, standards, video accessibility, women in IT, , , , , ,

Looking at accessibility for video includes sign language. It is a most fascinating area to get into and an area that still leaves a lot to formalise and standardise. A lot has happened in recent years and a lot still needs to be done.

Sign languages are different languages to spoken languages: they emerged in parallel to spoken languages in communities whose boundaries may not overlap with the boundaries of spoken languages. However, most developed means to translate spoken language artifacts (i.e. letters) into sign language artifacts (i.e. signs). So, a typical signer will speak/write at least 3-4 “languages”: the spoken language of their hearing peers, lip reading of that spoken language, letter signs of the spoken language, and finally the native sign language of the community they live in.

Encoding sign language in the computer is a real challenge. Firstly, there is the problem of enumerating all available languages. Then there is the challenge to find an alphabet to represent all “characters” that can be used in sign across many (preferably all) sign languages. Then there is the need to encode these characters in a way that computers can deal with. And finally, there is the need to find a screen representation of the characters. In this blog post, I want to describe the status for all of these.

Currently, sign language can only be represented as a video track by recording sign speakers. Once a sign character list together with an encoding and representation means for them and a specification of the different sign languages is available, it is possible to encode sign sentences in computer-readable form. Further, programs can be written that can present sign sentences on screen, that translate between different sign languages, and between sign and spoken languages. Also, avatars can be programmed that actually present animated sign sentences.

Imagine a computer that instead of presenting letters in your spoken language uses sign language characters and has keys with signs on them instead of letters. To a sign speaker this would be a lot more natural, since for most sign is their mother tongue.

Listing all existing sign languages
It was a challenge to create codes for all existing spoken languages – the current list of language codes has only been finalised in 1998.

Until the 1980s, scientists assumed that it is impossible to develop as rich a language with signs as with writing and speaking. Thus, the native languages of deaf people were often regarded as inferior to spoken languages. In many countries it was even prohibited to teach the language in schools for the deaf and instead they were taught to speak an oral language and read lips. In France this prohibition was only lifted in 1991! Only in about 1985 was it proven that sign languages are indeed as rich as spoken languages and deserve the right to be called a “language” and be treated as a fully capable means of communication.

So, there hasn’t actually been much time to map out a list of all sign languages. The best list I was able to find is in Wikipedia. It lists 28 N/S American, 38 European, 34 Asia-Pacific-AU/NZ, 30 African, and 13 Middle Eastern sign languages – in summary 143 sign languages. This list contains 177 sign languages.

Interestingly, there is also a new International Sign Language in development called Gestuno which is in use in international events (Olympics, conferences etc.) but has only a limited vocabulary.

In 1999 the Irish National Body, Deaf Action Committee for SignWriting, proposed the addition of sign language codes to ISO-639-2. Instead, a single code entered the list: sgn for sign language. In 2001, this led to the development of IETF language extension codes in RFC 3066 for 22 sign languages. In September 2006, this standard was replaced by RFC 4646, which defines 135 subtags for sign languages, including one for the International Sign Language and a generic “sgn” one.

While not complete, the current IANA subtag language registry now regards sign languages as valid derivatives of a country’s languages and therefore handles them identically to spoken languages. It’s also extensible such that any sign language not yet registered can still be specified.

Characters for sign languages
The written word is very powerful for preserving and sharing information. For a very long time there has been no written representation of sign languages. This is not surprising considering that there are still indigenous spoken languages that have no written representation. Also, the written representation of the spoken language around the community of a sign language would have served the sign community sufficiently for most purposes – except for the accurate capture of their thoughts and sign communications. It would always be a foreign language.

To move sign languages into the 20th century, the invention of characters for signs was necessary.

It is relatively easy to map the alphabets of spoken languages to signs (e.g. American (ASL) manual alphabet, British, Australian and NZ (AUSLAN) manual alphabet, or German manual finger alphabet, also see fingerspelling). Interesting the AUSLAN manual alphabet is a two-handed one while the ASL one is single-handed.

Fonts are available for these alphabets, too, e.g. British Sign Font, American Sign Font, French Sign Font and more.

The real challenge lies in capturing the proper signs deaf people use to communicate amongst themselves.

This is rather challenging, since sign languages uses the hands, head and body, with constantly changing movements and orientations for communication. Thus, while spoken language only has one dimension (sound) over time, sign languages have “three dimensions” and capturing this in characters is difficult. Many sign languages to this date don’t have a widely used written form, e.g. AUSLAN. Mostly in use nowadays are sequences of photos or videos – which of course cannot be computer processed easily.

Two main writing systems have been developed: the phonemic Stokoe notation and the iconic SignWriting.

Stokoe notation was created by William Stokoe for ASL in 1960, with Latin letters and numbers used for the shapes they have in fingerspelling, and iconic glyphs to transcribe the position, movement, and orientation of the hands. Adaptations were made to other sign languages to include further phonemes not found in ASL. Stokoe notation is written left-to-right on a page and can be typed with the proper font installed. It has a Unicode/ASCII mapping, but does not easily apply to other sign languages than ASL since it does not capture all possible signs. It has no representation for facial and body expressions and is therefore a relatively poor representation for sign.

SignWriting was created by Valerie Sutton in 1974, a dancer who had two years earlier developed DanceWriting and later developed MimeWriting, SportsWriting, and ScienceWriting. SignWriting is a writing system which uses visual symbols to represent the handshapes, movements, and facial expressions of sign languages. It is a generic sign alphabet with a list of symbols that can be used to write any sign language in the world.

SignWriting can be easily learnt by signers and is more popular now than Stokoe. Signers compose the symbols together in a spatial way to represent their signs. They then write the composed symbols from top to bottom on a page, similar to other iconic character sets. SignWriting currently supports 73 different sign languages, whose dictionaries and encyclopedias are captured in SignPuddle. This will eventually allow the creation of complete corpora for all sign languages.

Unicode encoding of SignWriting and visual representation
Because of its unique challenges of having to cover the spatial combination of symbols as a new symbol rather than just the sequential combination of symbols, it took a while to get a Unicode representation of SignWriting.

About a year ago, on 19th September 2008, Valerie Sutton released the International SignWriting Alphabet (ISWA 2008).

A binary representation of SignWriting is defined in ISWA 2008. It is based on a representing 639 base symbols and their potential 6 fill and 16 rotation variants in 61,343 code points, that completely cover the subset of 35023 valid symbol codes. The spatial aspect of SignWriting are encoded in a 2-dimensional coordinate system. The dimensions go from -1919 through 1919 to place the top left corner of the symbol.

SignWriting base symbols are encoded in plane 4 of Unicode, which provides 65,536 code points, easily covering the defined 61,343 Binary SignWriting code points. Further special control and number characters are used to encode the spatial layout.

Visual Representation of SignWriting
Valerie Sutton created over 35k individual PNG images for ISWA 2008, which have been reformatted for standard color & reduced file size, and renamed to the character code. They are a font used to represent the signs. The images can be accessed on Valerie’s server.

Closing
After learning all this today, I have to say that Valerie Sutton has just turned into a new idol of mine. The achievements with SignWriting and the possibilities it will enable are massive.

Now I just have to figure out what to do when we hit on a sign language track that has been encoded in SignWriting and it represents captions. Maybe it is possible to display sign as overlay but on the left side of the video. This would be similar to some other languages that go from top to bottom rather than left to right.

Updated video accessibility demo

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

Just a brief note to share that I have updated the video accessibility demo at http://www.annodex.net/~silvia/itext/elephant_no_skin.html.

It should now support ARIA and tab access to the menu, which I have simply put next to the video. I implemented the menu by learning from YUI. My Firefox 3.5.3 actually doesn’t tab through it, but then it also doesn’t tab through the YUI example, which I think is correct. Go figure.

Also, the textual audio descriptions are improved and should now work better with screenreaders.

I have also just prepared a recorded audio description of “Elephants Dreams” (German accent warning).

You can also download the multitrack Ogg Theora video file that contains the original audio and video track plus the audio description as an extra track, created using oggz-merge.

As soon as some kind soul donates a sign language track for “Elephants Dream”, I will have a pretty complete set of video accessibility tracks for that video. This will certainly become the basis for more video a11y work!