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

RE: Combing checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:01:15 -0500
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c11c91$bb7f43c0$b2176880@trace.wisc.edu>
Ah in looking is see part of the problem for thinking 1.2 and 1.3 were
the same

in 1.2 it says

"When text equivalents of visual information are spoken aloud (either by
a human or a speech synthesizer) and synchronized with the multimedia
presentation they are called "auditory descriptions." Refer to
checkpoint 1.3. "

This is inaccurate.   1.2 is only about text.  So it should read

"When text equivalents of visual information are provided they must be
synchronized with the multimedia presentation.   ( NOTE:  Checkpoint 1.3
requires that audio descriptions also be provided until text
descriptions can be read by screen readers (or equiv) in synchrony with
the visual track.)



Having posted the last two memos -- I would like to invite people to
find a way to combine these two if we can -- since it would be nice to
do so.   But 1.3 is so specialized it may be hard.     Give it a whirl
though.

thanks

Gregg


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 9:50 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Combing checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3

Hmmm
The only trouble is that the purpose of 1.3 was to require a description
that could be audible-ized.    That is -- an audio description   (until
the text equiv could be read by screen readers - in which case it would
automatically fulfill this requirement).

By combining these two -- we now require that the text version be
synchronized but we do not require an audio version exist (though if you
did one you would need to synchronize it).   In effect we would remove
audio descriptions for movies from the guidelines.

Now one could say that the criteria would add that back in.  But I don’t
think we can have criteria for a point require something that is not
covered by the point itself.


We tried to fit 1.3 into 1.2 in the first place and were unable.  That
is how we ended up with it as a separate item.   It still needs be
separate unless we can figure out at way to specifically require this in
the checkpoint -- which the current (revised) 1.2 does not

Gregg

-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Anne Pemberton
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:59 PM
To: Wendy A Chisholm; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Combing checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3

Wendy,

         I've read the combined new 1.2 and it seems to cover everything

that was covered before.  Go for it!

                                         Anne


At 01:20 PM 8/3/01 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>The 26 July 2001 draft combined checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 into one
checkpoint.
>
>Previous 1.2: Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia
presentations.
>Previous 1.3: Synchronize a description of the essential visual
>information in multimedia presentations.
>
>Proposed/current 1.2: 1.2 Synchronize media equivalents with
>time-dependent presentations.
>
>This change was made because it was proposed by Sean (13 January 2001)
[1]
>and William (8 January 2001) [2] in separate threads. They received
some
>support. The success criteria are similar, so they seemed to fit
together
>well. Whether you synchronize a text-equivalent as an audio description
or
>synchronize a recorded human voice - those seem to be techniques.
>
>Should these be combined or should we keep them separate?
>
>Thanks,
>--wendy
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001JanMar/0216.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001JanMar/0173.html
>--
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>seattle, wa usa
>/--

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 23:07:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT