RE: CLARIFICATION

Greetings Lisa.

Again, just my own perspective, not the groups.  I am pleased to have this conversation and post to the Team A group.  I would also be happy to take it off-line.

I am very uncomfortable with any rationalization that involves either:  (a) number of people effected; or (b) potentially pits one group of end-users with disabilities against another.

I don't dispute your numbers, just that using them to justify an accommodation that creates a barrier is a dangerous proposition.  In any case, the number of folks who are Deaf is significant.  These folks will benefit greatly from supplemental video, but not if an associated audio track is not captioned.  If there is no audio track, and the video is redundant to the textual information, then everyone is well served and the content is accessible.

I do not agree that uncaptioned (prerecorded) multimedia is ever acceptable for Level 1 conformance.  Not even when the stated purpose of the uncaptioned multimedia is to increase access for people with learning disabilities.

Uncaptioned video-only (no audio) *might* be okay.  (Since the required text equivalent can take many forms.)

At my work with 508 compliance testing, application sponsors often (try to) claim: "But nobody with a disability will be using this web site!"  The number of end-user with disabilities is not a factor.  I feel the same way about multimedia.  I don't care if the Deaf (or blind folks) are your intended audience (or not) for the multimedia.  If you want to claim that your site is accessible (WCAG or 508 conformant) you will provide captioning for multimedia.

Cheers,
Bruce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:23 PM
> To: Bailey, Bruce
> Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CLARIFICATION
> 
> Hi Bruce
> Could you pass on my reply to the group - I am not subscribed 
> to group A 
> Thanks...L
> 
>> Worse case scenario:  Given a fixed amount of time and 
>> money, they only can provide half as many videos.  I am
>> comfortable with that calculus.  Which is better:   A 
>> hundred videos with no captions?  Or fifty videos with 
>> audio description and captions available?  I would pick 
>> the later choice any day of the week.
> 
> Lisa: There are many more people with Non Specific LD who 
> really need this 
> then there are Blind people. (And of course there are much 
> more people with 
> any form of LD then there are with Non Specific LD)
> 
> So this worse case scenario is a loss for accessibility
> 
> Also I think the cross over of people who are:
> a, blind
> b, have a severe form of  LD and
> c who are also using a screen reader or Braille display
> may be on the small side
> 
> Note, captions on  these type of clips are mainly for them
> All the best
> Lisa

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 17:05:07 UTC