W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:41:42 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000804174128.0278bbd0@localhost>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, WAI WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, geoff_freed@wgbh.org
I meant to say that an entry in the WCAG Errata would say...
--w

At 04:37 PM 8/4/00 , Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

>CMN:
>>The question of context is in large part one of implementation priority - in
>>order to make something accessible it does depend to a certain extent on what
>>the context is, because in some contexts a full understanding or full
>>equivalent is not really necessary, and in others it is important to get as
>>close an equivalent as possible. (Think of the different uses of alt, title
>>and longdesc for an image as one example of this).
>>
>>This is an area where accessibility requires considerable thought, skill, or
>>experience to do well. (As is writing a music video in the first place.)
>>Fortunately, the actual technical barriers are much lower. So in order to
>>make these things accessible there is some work to be done. Should we do that
>>work in all cases? Of course. Which part to do first? That's a case-by-case
>>question.
>
>WC:: Perhaps we need to use a relative priority along the lines of what we 
>did for 8.1
><Q>
>  Make programmatic elements  such as scripts and applets directly 
> accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if 
> functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.]
></Q>
>
>Thus, an entry in the WCAG for Checkpoint 1.3 would read:
><Q>
>1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of 
>a visual track,  provide an auditory description of the important 
>information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.   [Priority 
>1 if the visual track of the multimedia is important for understanding the 
>surrounding content, otherwise Priority 2]
></Q>
>
>That's probably not the smoothest wording, but I hope you get the drift.
>
>thoughts?
>--wendy
>
>>Some detailed comments interspersed below - look for CMN or WC
>>
>>Charles
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>>
>>   Hello,
>>
>>   The debate that we had on the Evaluation and Repair Tools list (ER) was to
>>   decide when auditory descriptions must be provided.
>>
>>   Ignoring the "until user agents" clause of checkpoint 1.3, it reads,
>>   "provide an auditory description of the important information of the 
>> visual
>>   track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]."  This means that every
>>   multimedia presentation needs an auditory description.  I am not sure that
>>   is necessary nor feasible.  I'll illustrate this with a few examples.
>>
>>CMN not really. It means that every multimedia presentation with important
>>information needs an audio equivalent, which is (admittedly only
>>slightly) different).
>>WC
>>   1. Silent movies
>>   Usually, there is video and the only audio is music of some sort 
>> (usually a
>>   piano).  A summary of what has been said is visually displayed every so
>>   often.  Is a transcript (that includes descriptions of major visual 
>> events)
>>   enough or does a synchronized auditory description need to be provided?
>>CMN
>>Until user agents can read the transcript out loud, there needs to be an
>>audio version in order to provide accessibility.
>>WC
>>   2. Music videos
>>   Music videos are visual expressions of songs.  Usually, they show the
>>   people who have made the music, sometimes they have a story line, there is
>>   usually lots of lipsynching and dancing.  Do they need a synchronized
>>   auditory description?  Oftentimes the video has nothing to do with the
>>   music.  Is a transcript (that includes descriptions of major visual 
>> events)
>>   enough?  Is a transcript required?
>>CMN
>>It hinges on the definition of important. It may not be important to know
>>more than that the band is playing for the clip of "Ob-la-Di". It may equally
>>be important to explain the relevance of the imagery used in the clip of "I
>>want to be Jim Morrison" (by the Widowed Isis, for the obsessively
>>curious). But there is a question of how to describe it - that there are
>>snakes and fire threaded through the clip, or to synchronise it so that
>>Sinead's tear is mentioned at the critical point, not beofer or after since
>>the emotional impact of that moment is supposed to be important.
>>
>>-Chaals
>>WC
>>   Does it depend on context?  If the movie is being studied for comic timing
>>   or how to make silent films, then is the auditory description required? If
>>   someone who is blind is watching the movie with someone who has sight, the
>>   person who is blind would not know when to express emotion.   On the other
>>   hand, if the silent film is a commercial or a decoration of some sort, is
>>   the text transcript enough?
>>
>>   In the case of the music video, it seems to make sense to describe
>>   something like Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video since it has such an
>>   involved story line.  Although I would only synchronize descriptions 
>> to the
>>   sections of the video when there is no music but the dialog, action and
>>   story line continue. However, I would only say this is priority 1 
>> (must) if
>>   the context that the video is presented in is to study the video for some
>>   reason (music video 101).  If it's just for enjoyment (on mtv.com) I would
>>   lower this to a priority 2 (should).
>>
>>   On the other hand, no matter what the context, I do not see the need to
>>   provide a synchronized description to Sinead O'Connor's "Nothing Compares
>>   to You" music video since it's just a close up of her face as she
>>   sings.  If I were working for mtv.com and posting this video, I would
>>   provide a static, text description of the nature of the video and what she
>>   looks like, "A close-up of Sinead singing.  Her pale white face and bald
>>   head contrast with the black background.  Midway through the song she 
>> sheds
>>   a tear and in general looks very anguished...."
>>
>>   The primary question is, what is the minimum requirement that must be met
>>   to conform to checkpoint 1.3?  Must an auditory description be 
>> provided for
>>   every multimedia presentation?
>>
>>   Thoughts?  Are there other examples where the need for an auditory
>>   description is questionable? where context may determine if it is required
>>   or not?
>>
>>   I hope I have not offended anyone.  If you disagree with my reasoning, 
>> I am
>>   obviously open to discussion since I am posting this to the WCAG list with
>>   a series of questions and no firm conclusions.  I understand that
>>   independent of context, people want information.  I am trying to find a
>>   reasonable balance between what authors need to provide and what users 
>> need
>>   to understand the content.  I believe that once we can rely on speech
>>   synthesis to create a synchronized auditory description this will become
>>   less of an issue.  But until then, there are concerns from authors about
>>   cost and implementation.  If we need to push them we will.  However, I 
>> want
>>   to be sure of the necessary requirements.
>>
>>   Thanks,
>>   --wendy
>>
>>   At 09:49 PM 8/2/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>   >An Audio equivalent to video is necessary in the same situations that 
>> a text
>>   >equivalent is necessary (ignoring the question of whether it is OK to 
>> rely on
>>   >synthesising speech from the text equivalent), In My Humble Opinion.
>>   >
>>   >I don't know of anyone doing a lot of audio description (but then I 
>> can point
>>   >to a lot of other access barriers that people haven't removed yet too).
>>   >
>>   >just my personal thoughts on the topic
>>   >
>>   >Charles McCN
>>   >
>>   >On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>>   >
>>   >   Ignoring the "until user agents" clause for a minute, when is an audio
>>   >   description necessary?
>>   >
>>   >   Does anyone know of a site that provides audio descriptions for their
>>   >   multimedia?
>>   >
>>   >   Wondering,
>>   >   Chris
>>   >
>>   >
>>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>>   >   From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
>>   >   To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
>>   >   Cc: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "Al Gilman"
>>   > <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
>>   >   Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 1:05 AM
>>   >   Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3
>>   >
>>   >
>>   >   > I guess the real question is whether the until user agents 
>> condition in
>>   >   WCAG
>>   >   > checkpoint 1.3 has been met...
>>   >   >
>>   >   > Thoughts?
>>   >   >
>>   >   > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>>   >   >
>>   >   >   OK. The requirement for an audio description is not dependant 
>> on the
>>   >   >   presence of a text description.
>>   >   >
>>   >   >   > An audio description is required when what you miss by not 
>> seeing the
>>   >   >   video
>>   >   >   > is [something in the range of (significant, important, 
>> critical)].
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >   An audio description is much more difficult to create than a text
>>   >   >   description and the file size is much larger. So we need to be 
>> clear
>>   >   about
>>   >   >   when it's required before telling the author to do all this work.
>>   >   >
>>   >   >   Do all important/significant/critical videos require an audio
>>   >   description?
>>   >   >
>>   >   >   Is an audio description necessary if there is a good text 
>> description?
>>   >   >
>>   >   >   Chris
>>   >   >
>>   >   >
>>   >   >   ----- Original Message -----
>>   >   >   From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
>>   >   >   To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "WAI WCAG List"
>>   >   >   <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>   >   >   Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 2:07 PM
>>   >   >   Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3
>>   >   >
>>   >   >
>>   >   >   > At 11:06 AM 2000-07-28 -0400, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>>   >   >   > >I'm looking for some clarification on technique 1.3:
>>   >   >   > >
>>   >   >   > >"1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text
>>   >   equivalent
>>   >   >   of a
>>   >   >   > >visual track, provide an auditory description of the important
>>   >   >   information
>>   >   >   > >of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]"
>>   >   >   > >
>>   >   >   > >Does this mean that an audio description is required only if
>>   > there is
>>   >   a
>>   >   >   text
>>   >   >   > >equivalent of a visual track? Or, when is an audio description
>>   >   required?
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >   > The description is required when it is required, not just 
>> when it is
>>   >   >   provided.
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >   > An audio description is required when what you miss by not 
>> seeing the
>>   >   >   video
>>   >   >   > is [something in the range of (significant, important, 
>> critical)].
>>   >   Once
>>   >   >   > User Agents 'all' do synchronized audible playback of a text
>>   >   description
>>   >   >   > track as a native function, a synchronized text equivalent 
>> will meet
>>   >   the
>>   >   >   > requirement for a description.  Until then, provide audio.
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >   > The requirement for a description is determined by the 
>> complexity and
>>   >   >   > importance of the video, not by what the author has done 
>> about the
>>   >   >   > requirement.
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >   > The "until user agents" clause only affect whether this 
>> description
>>   >   must
>>   >   >   be
>>   >   >   > in audio or may be only in text.  It has nothing to do with the
>>   >   criteria
>>   >   >   > for when a description is required.
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >   > Is that the way others recall, too?
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >   > Al
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >   > >
>>   >   >   > >Thanks,
>>   >   >   > >Chris
>>   >   >   > >
>>   >   >   >
>>   >   >
>>   >   >
>>   >   > --
>>   >   > Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 
>> (0) 409 134
>>   >   136
>>   >   > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
>>   >   http://www.w3.org/WAI
>>   >   > Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>>   >   > Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
>>   >   >
>>   >
>>   >
>>   >--
>>   >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 
>> 134 136
>>   >W3C Web Accessibility 
>> Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>>   >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>>   >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
>>
>>   --
>>   wendy a chisholm
>>   world wide web consortium
>>   web accessibility initiative
>>   madison, wi usa
>>   tel: +1 608 663 6346
>>   /--
>>
>>
>>--
>>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
>
>--
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>madison, wi usa
>tel: +1 608 663 6346
>/--

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Friday, 4 August 2000 17:42:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:05 GMT