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

Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:08:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
cc: love26@gorge.net, WAI WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008141500030.17319-100000@tux.w3.org>
Err, the flak isn't at you, it is a statement about the proposal. Actually,
whatever priority it is, the author, or some further editor, has to decide to
put in description. The user may discover that they have no idea what is
going on, or they may not even be aware of it.

So I would suggest a simple test is that if the auditory description allows
important details to escape notice, then it is inadequate. Reading the
transcript of this may be enough for someone who knows the video itself.

As Geoff said, description need not be enormous, but does need to convey what
the video conveys. In the example used earlier of Sinead O'Connor, an opening
description of how it looks "Sinead O'Connor, head shaved, sings, visible
only from the neck up" and at the critical moment "she sheds a single
tear" may suffice. If a teacher were to use the video to exlain lighting
effects, (under the "fair use" provisions of international copyright
treaties) it would be reasonable to expect them to add the relevant
commentary, which is in fact what one would expect them to add in a classroom
situation anyway.

As an alternative consider the stage directions given for most plays - a few
lines to set a scene, a few key details. Not often enough done at the moment,
but hardly a gargantuan task.

Charles McCN

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote:

  "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
  presentation?
  
  Chris
  
  
  ----- 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.
  >             ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
  > http://dicomp.pair.com
  >
  

-- 
--
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 
Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 15:10:18 GMT

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