- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Lachlan Hunt'" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > So your opinion is that we should not provide any public recording > whatsoever if we cannot commit to also offer a transcript? > It is more than just opinion Anne, it is in accordance with an existing W3C Recommendation - WCAG 2: Content must be Perceivable: * 1.1 Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, Braille, speech, symbols or simpler language. * 1.2 Provide alternatives for time-based media. * 1.3 Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure. (source: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ ) The expression "...eating our own dog food" comes to mind here. Repeatedly members of the WHAT WG/HTML WG have stated that they all want an accessible web, but when it comes time to actually stepping up to the plate and doing the hard work, then there is all this back-peddling posturing and incredulous questioning of basic accessibility statements & requests. FWIW, I can get audio converted to text for as little as $1.35 minute - conversion done by professional transcriptionists - and further I would be prepared to pay for the first recorded telecom from my own pocket if that is what it takes (although it strikes me that Opera, Mozilla, Apple, Google and Microsoft have much deeper pockets than me...). If you are going to start recording these telecons for an 'enhanced' understanding beyond IRC logs and scribe's minutes, then these enhanced recordings should be accessible to all participants. The answer is an unequivocal YES. JF
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 18:02:52 UTC