W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Interaction of checkpoints 1.1 and 1.3

From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:02:10 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525675A.0073D2C2.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>


I read past minutes and many post to the list, but I don't understand why
important video information available as a text description or audio
description is made more accessible by being synchronized with the video.

>However, as Gregg has argued, consistently and persuasively, until such
>time as multimedia players (that is to say, user agents) can synchronize a
>spoken rendering of the text equivalent with the audio track of a
>multimedia presentation, there is no other means available of providing a
>synchronized equivalent to the video. He therefore maintained that this
>item must have a priority 1 rating, as failure to include a description
>renders the content inaccessible.

Whether I buy the book or buy the video, I can usually figure out how to do
the complicated task that I bought the book or video for.  My ability to
accomplish the task is usually dependent on my ability to comprehend and/or
the authors ability to describe in written or video format. I don't know of
an example where the synchronization would provide more accessibility.

This is similar to internationalization issues of translating audio and
video information.  Synchronizing the alternative content should be
priority 3.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 17:05:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT