W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Recording teleconferences?

From: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:56:24 -0700
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Vicki Stanton <vicki.stanton@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E2137BB5-EB26-4117-92C5-A70A20A07D97@adobe.com>
On Aug 15, 2009, at 10:10 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>  

> Right, the problem from my point of view is that we are already  
> having inaccessible meetings.

We are not. If anyone requests a relay, they can have one provided, as  
I already said. There is no legal or functional accessibility problem  
with the system as it is. There are issues with availability, language  
capability and persistence, which I think could and should be addressed.

>  And now I'm being told that in order to publish that data I first  
> have to find some money source that donates USD 80 each week to get  
> the minutes transcribed.

No, Anne, you are not being told that. In fact, the people you are  
accusing of "negative energy" are going _out of their way_ to make a  
transcript process free and zero-effort on your part. And you are  
STILL whining about it, and assigning blame. Is it any wonder there is  
a deeply-seated distrust between the "accessibility people" and  
everyone else?

(BTW: Yes, Sam, I would say this directly to Anne, and if you'd like  
to see me prove it, see you in November.)

> (I also think this is a problem with WCAG. Once it gets more and  
> more into government regulation data will just be hold back because  
> it becomes too costly to publish.

It sounds to me like you're saying the yardstick should state that a  
piece of content should be called accessible if you simply wished it  
were. Unfortunately, in the real world, accessible media takes work,  
and if governments want to give their citizens a pass, that's one  
thing, but under no circumstances should WCAG call inaccessible  
content accessible simply because it's inconvenient to fix.

> I was a in Dutch government media related meeting a little over a  
> month ago and apparently there's a 100x increase in cost in getting  
> already recorded videos accessible. In not so many words it was  
> stated that if things actually became required it would just mean  
> that a bunch of data would get lost. That would be terrible in my  
> opinion.)

Mine too. Good thing that number is a complete fabrication. Who would  
believe a 100x increase in effort for media accessibility? Seriously,  
Anne, you demand evidence for anything related to the HTML5 spec, but  
take at face value an outrageous figure thrown out at some meeting,  
and use that to trash WCAG?

Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 20:57:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC