Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider additional use case - live audio description #236

Open
ewanrsmith opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Consider additional use case - live audio description #236

ewanrsmith opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@ewanrsmith
Copy link

We should consider whether DAPT supports the following live audio description workflow in its current form:

  • It would be desirable for an application that facilitates live audio description to generate an exchange file as descriptions are recorded.
  • These descriptions would have no associated text at this stage, the expectation being that the audio would be transcribed later
  • A DAPT document at this stage would have audio sources but not text

Does it require any adaptation to accommodate this workflow? Superficially it would appear so, but does it warrant the inclusion of a new represents or scriptType value?

@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed Consider additional use case - live audio description w3c/dapt#236, and agreed to the following:

  • SUMMARY: Issue brought to group's attention during regular call 2024-07-18
The full IRC log of that discussion <nigel> Subtopic: Consider additional use case - live audio description #236
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/236
<nigel> Ewan: Proposing a potential use case that I don't think had been considered earlier.
<nigel> .. If you are generating live audio description, ideally you would be creating a DAPT document
<nigel> .. for which there is no text but there are references to audio snippets.
<nigel> .. I wondered if that might break the design, or need any metadata changes.
<nigel> .. At the surface level I don't think there would be any need for accommodations for that kind of
<nigel> .. workflow but I thought it would be worth bouncing off others in the group.
<nigel> Nigel: I think this needs some investigation to understand how it should best be represented,
<nigel> .. I can see it would be a legitimate use case but I suspect it might have a different process step at the beginning,
<nigel> .. in other words it wouldn't straightforwardly meet the currently described workflows.
<nigel> .. But it should work, I agree.
<nigel> .. Live AD is a new-ish thing, so we had not necessarily considered it.
<nigel> SUMMARY: Issue brought to group's attention during regular call 2024-07-18

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants