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 17:00:23 -0500
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525675A.0079274C.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>



>Unsynchronised alternatives can lead to a completely different
interpretation
>of a video. A simple example is to provide captions which imply that
speakers
>are taking different positions in a debate to those they are in fact
taking.


I agree that captions incorrectly synchronized [poorly or mislabeled] with
the video can lead to completely different interpretations - just as a
transcript of our working groups minutes which are incorrectly labeled as
to who is saying what can lead to completely different interpretations.  I
agree "IF" I provide captions with the video they should be synchronized
correctly.  But why priority 1 to *have to* provide a captioned video? -
when a separate text transcript will do?

 For example, if we were to video record a W3C conference call where some
members were present in one room, say at MIT, and others participating via
the phone; and we provide the clip on the W3C web site, would it have to be
closed captioned to meet the guidelines - or is it just as accessible to
have the transcript of the video conference call?  I can think of more
elaborate video conference calls I been in where charts (HTML pages) where
shown and mechanical models were displayed, but I could provide all the
information in a text description file - and it be fully accessible -
without the production of synchronizing captions and video descriptions
with the original recorded video.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 18:03:29 GMT

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