- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:45:18 -0700
- To: Christian Vogler <christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-texttracks@w3.org, Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
On May 6, 2014, at 16:02 , Christian Vogler <christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu> wrote: > Saying that we need to do something because of some legalities is not the right stance to take. It is because video accessibility to people with disabilities matters, that we are doing this. A lot of the FCC legalities with respect to internet video actually exist because that is what consumers with disabilities, who first-hand depend on the outcome and use captions on a daily basis, asked for. Not all the nooks and crannies are wonderful or make sense, but a lot of them are there for good reasons. Yes, I agree: we need to supply results that give good, no, excellent, accessibility. My problem with the regulations is that they are written in terms of precise technology, rather than effect, and often that technology decision was driven by an environment and set of constraints we no longer have. An example is the odd color palette; is there any evidence that enabling users to choose these particular colors has any effect on overall accessibility? The set seems chosen from the days when TVs could have a few colors in ROMs (lookup tables), effectively, and they wanted to know what to put in the ROM. I don’t know any lookup-table-driven display today. (Remember setting your mac for 256 colors? thousands of colors?) I rather suspect that we’d be a lot further ahead if we hadn’t spent a lot of time following mandates to emulate x08, honestly. But overall, I share your frustration and agree with the goals. The goal is great accessibility across the ecosystem. Let’s get there. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2014 23:45:49 UTC