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

PRI - 8 Alternate synchronized formats for Audio-Visual Material

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:11:38 -0500
To: "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D088364DDC78D211B9CA00104B978B86397A@nt.trace.wisc.edu>
ISSUE - 8:  Regarding Checkpoints  1.3	and 1.4 requiring synchronized
alternative multi-media:
"1.3 For each movie, provide an auditory description of the video track and
synchronize it with the audio track" "1.4 For any time-based presentation
(e.g., a movie, animation, or multimedia presentation), synchronize
equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or video descriptions) with the
presentation.

An AC Member agreed that text transcripts and text or audio descriptions
should be a priority item.   They did not feel however that important video
information available as a text description is made more accessible by being
synchronized with the video. They also did not feel that text transcripts of
audio tracks of video information is made more accessible by being
synchronized with video.  They felt that it would be a huge burden to
re-produce existing multimedia content in the varied synchronized formats
and platforms.  They felt that the guidelines need to be clearer in
describing the formats that it requires.  They felt that this was similar to
internationalization issues of translating audio and video information.
They felt that synchronizing the alternative content should be priority 3
and only applicable to new content produced.


PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
The working group did not feel that having captions (or text transcripts of
the audio tracks), available as a non-synchronized text files would allow
people who were deaf to be able to watch a movie successfully.  Nor did the
group feel that a script of a movie (a text description of the audio
combined with a description of the key visual events) was an equivalent to
watching the movie for a person who could see.   Similarly with video
descriptions.   It was not felt that these could be dropped in priority.

With regard to limiting this guideline to existing material:  It was noted
that the guidelines describe what makes web content accessible, and does not
describe how these guidelines should be applied.   It would be up to others
to decide, for example, that certain guidelines or checkpoints should only
be expected of new material.  That is not a question of accessibility but of
undue burden or some similar measure.

Finally, it was noted that tools are now becoming available that could take
at script and automatically synchronize it with a movie.   It will also be
possible soon to have the video description part automatically voiced and
synchronized.   People generating videos could send the av material and a
script (of the audio and key visual components of the AV material) over the
internet to a robot that would voice and synchronize both the text and
voiced material with the original AV material.


SPECIFIC WORDING:   No changes proposed.
Received on Monday, 26 April 1999 12:12:36 GMT

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