W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: "Freak Cases Warrant Generalization"...

From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:43:14 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:36 PM 1/13/2001 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>        "1.2 Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia presentations."
>   This is too "technique-ized" for a general guideline. Maybe something like
>   the following would be an adequate replacement:-
>   1.2 Properly synchronize all media equivalents for time dependent
>   presentations
>CMN I agree with this suggestion. There is no reason why text is even
>considered first among equals in this kind of case - the far more common
>requirement is synchronisation of audio, in my experience.

I think it depends on what is considered as text. Captions are text and 
they should be synchoronized with the video. When this is done they 
actually form a text stream.


>SP  And I'm sure the same basics can be applied to 2/3/4. In general, think
>   about the most outlandish cases possible - do the guidelines still apply?
>   If not, change them... :-)
>CMN The value of thinking about the outlandish cases is that it is what we
>have to do to ensure people do not come back and say "in my case, I have done
>something which directly contravenes the WCAG but is accessible", to the best
>of our ability. Otherwise the document should be called "how to make normal
>stuff accessible, and explicitly state that it has limited application. In my
>understanding that is the case with Techniques documents, which are specific
>to particulr technologies or funcitionalities, but not for guidelines and
>The ATAG used to have a checkpoint requiring that users could configure (e.g.
>turn off) the timing of accessiblity checking / warnings. We decided in teh
>working group that this was a useful technique, often required by the market
>for some kinds of tool, but not actually a requirement for accessibility, and
>that having it as a checkpoint would preclude conformance by a tool that did
>everything right but didn't let the user turn of the warnings. Not everyone
>wants such a tool, but if it works, it should be able to conform.
>(my 2 bits worth on this rant...)
>Charles McCN
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 19:49:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC