Pierre Heinrichs, IT Manager, CENELEC
This presentation is based on the "TV for All" report compiled by Gerry Stallard for CENELEC. Due to his other commitments Gerry is unable to be here today - so instead I'm taking his place.
Working for CENELEC, I'm in charge of ICT Standardization and this includes TV for All. So if you have any detailed questions I'll try to answer them - but failing that I will pass them onto Gerry who I know will be delighted to respond. (Next Slide)
So - Digital Television, the background. Few would deny that Television is essential to today's society - it offers information, culture, entertainment and more. Now, with the development of Digital TV, access to these services will be even more important to all of us. Yet there is a downside here - a recent report by the UK's Independent Television Commission stated that many people found digital TV to be more difficult than computers! What an indictment - and it follows that Digital TV will be a challenge to many - especially those who disabled. (Next Slide)
To look more closely at these aspects CENELEC, CEN and ETSI held a conference in 2002 called TV for All. It was attended by representatives from disabled groups, manufacturers, policy makers and consumer groups. The event was quite unique in drawing together all these disparate groups but it was able to recognise many of the issues that need facing in the world of digital TV. (Next Slide)
So if Digital TV is to be really for all people - what are these issues? We know already that in some countries there is little or no subtitling. And that audio description and signing is unknown. Many "on-screen" messages are often hard to read with no audio equivalent. Remote controls can be difficult to use and the whole area of digital is surrounded by complex symbols and terminology. People often find that the navigation of menus is confusing especially where these require many keystrokes to reach the right information or service such as subtitling. (Next Slide)
To keep the impetus of the TV for All conference we decided to form a "virtual group" on CENELEC's website and encourage others to join us in finding a way forward. We needed to consider how to open up digital TV access to disabled people especially those with sensory impairments. The first step therefore was to place a Roadmap on the website and then draw up an Interim Report to CENELEC in June 2003. The Final report was then presented to the European Commission in December 2003. (Next Slide)
We all met in Barcelona in October last year to finalise matters. Representative groups gave their views and recommendations even if not all views were compatible. The Final report therefore has been updated to accommodate these concerns and delivered to the European Commission in December 2003. None the less many recognised that the report did make a useful contribution to opening up access. (Next Slide)
The main areas we addressed in the report were:
Assistive services (Subtitling, signing and audio description)
Receiver terminals
Remote controls
Electronic Programme guides
On-Screen displays
Interoperability
Recording equipment
Retention of recordings
So I'd now like to outline these points with you. (Next Slide)
Firstly - Assistive services. We all know that subtitling is available in both analogue and in digital forms - but without doubt digital, with its improved text, is far superior. Audio description - again available in analogue form but digital techniques allow access in a closed format where you only access the service if you want to. Signing too benefits, soon it is hoped that it will be able to convey a signers image in a closed format. (Next Slide)
Assistive services need to be provided and presented in the best possible way. For example, subtitling needs to be at an adequate reading speed allowing time for the captions to be read. Signers need to wear clothing that has a good contrast ratio with the background. While audio description certainly needs to provide the key information about the scene, it should not be too much and give away the "plot"! (Next Slide)
Receiver controls often come in for criticism by having awkward dials and switches - some of which are virtually inaccessible. Their external connections can also be difficult even to find and use for blind people and there is a clear demand for being able to connect to Braille printers. (Next Slide)
The decoders themselves should have sufficient capacity to provide all media access services. Already there is a concern that low cost set top boxes coming to the market may not have this capability. Further, unlike the computer market where almost each month we see a " new, better improved" version - today's viewers should not be expected to upgrade their decoders regularly. It follows that where practicable, they should be backwards compatible and be capable of receiving "over air "upgrades. For the consumer it would be particularly helpful if Europe adopted a labelling system whereby at the point of sale there is easily understood information about the product. This is especially applicable to information about decoders, which should say if they have the capability of receiving assistive services. (Next Slide)
Manufacturers like to identify their product by having individual remote controls. To some extend this may be acceptable, but here are a few simple guidelines that would help us all. All remote controls should be comfortable to use, they should have a minimum number of buttons on the face. Those buttons, which are rarely used, can easily be hidden under flap or some such device. The buttons themselves should be clearly labelled, shaped and provide an indication at the receiver when pressed. All remotes should have a single button for access to media services. And finally there should have at least some commonality for volume control codes and one or two other commonly used commands. Just one or two remotes that operate on all devices would certainly ease the number of remote controls that now seem to dominate our households! (Next Slide)
Another area for confusion, especially amongst those who have cognitive impairments, is that of EPG's and menus. These should be logical and intuitive. The menu structure must above all be simple and unambiguous. All assistive services easily accessed and perhaps identified with a common symbol for all of Europe. Any text or graphics used should be clear and use good contrasting colours. It's no good if they just look pretty, you must be able to read and use them as well! (Next Slide)
Much the same is true for "on-screen" displays - all text should be able to be seen within the "safe viewing area". That is 80% of a fourteen by nine screen. The text should be of a san serif typeface - a good example is that of Tiresias which was especially designed to read from an electronic screen. Again text should have a good contrast ratio and any screen layout must be simple. (Next Slide)
Interoperability is an example where Europe really needs to set standards. At present there is no generic version and although much has been said in this area, we are still being dictated to by vertical broadcasters ensuring we must purchase a different box for each platform. Here, and especially with Conditional Access, there is a need for Open Standards. (Next Slide)
Returning to assistive services - we need to ensure that as Personal Video Recorders come to the market that they have the capability of recording assistive services. Let's not have the situation again where VHS machines were incapable of recording subtitles. Again their is a call for Open Standards here as proposed by TV Anytime consortium. (Next Slide)
Another area that really does need attention is the constant re-subtitling of programmes that already have been subtitled. It really is wasteful - and expensive for broadcasters to repeat this process when they purchase a programme. The EBU or a similar body within individual countries could hold a master list of all subtitled material which could be exchanged for a modest cost. (Next Slide)
All these matters and more have been addressed in the TV for All Final report. As said it has now been passed to CENELEC for its onward passage to the EUROPEAN COMMISSION - but we would also like it to be considered by National Regulatory Authorities as well. Indeed manufacturers and broadcasters, we feel, could also benefit from its recommendations - most of which are inexpensive and of considerable benefit to consumers and viewers alike. (Next Slide)
So can we expect action on this front by the European Commission? Perhaps the introduction of standards in some areas and guidelines in others? Can we also see some co-operation between manufacturers and disabled people as to their needs - again much of what is wanted can be achieved without involving undue expense and certainly cheaper if considered at the design stage. (Next Slide)
Is there a vision for the future? We hope so. How about a truly multi modal device? Wireless connections, which remove all those tangled cables. "User Chooser" displays with choice of subtitle speed and size of font? And what of voice driven commands banishing the remote control forever!!
Perhaps then we really will have TV for All!
Speech held at the occasion of the European Conference on "Access to the Information Society" in the Residence Palace, Brussels, on 25 February 2004.
