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

Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:58:04 -0400
Message-ID: <00a701c00621$941d27c0$b040968e@ic.utoronto.ca>
To: <love26@gorge.net>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
"Instead I think that for practical reasons we should change this from a
priority 1 to a priority 2."

I knew I was going to catch flack for this proposal but thought it needed to
be said.

If we leave it as a priority 1 then we're in the position of letting the
user decide if the video content requires a synchronized audio description.
So when is an audio description required?

a) The a/v presentation itself is important to the user's well being.
b) The a/v presentation itself is important to the culture.
c) The audio track does not adequately describe the video.
d) Other suggestions??

Can anyone suggest a site that has an synched audio description for an a/v


----- Original Message -----
From: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "Wendy A Chisholm"
<wendy@w3.org>; "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3

> CMcCN: "Hmmm. I am absolutely opposed to this reasoning"
> WL: I second the notion. Just because there's a huge body of
> inaccessible material is no excuse for condoning it.
> --
> Love.
> http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 14:58:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:33 UTC