- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:45:05 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
My recall of the idea behind 1.3 was that it called for non-text equivalents to be presented where appropriate. Audio description of video, however it is generated, is a particularly outstanding example (but in my opinion is an example not a checkpoint). I don't think this is a showstopper - the point is handled in other places anyway. Charles On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Jason White wrote: The relationship between checkpoints 1.1 and 1.3 caused significant confusion during last Tuesday's teleconference, and I am concerned that it would be likewise obscure to most readers. This shortcoming could be rectified by adding an explanatory note to checkpoint 1.3 which explains that the combined effect of checkpoints 1.1 and 1.3 is that a description of the video must be provided both as text, and as a synchronized audio stream. I would argue that such clarification is needed irrespective of the proposed "Until most multimedia players [...]" qualification of checkpoint 1.3. --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 1999 11:45:22 UTC