- From: (unknown charset) Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 05:26:29 -0500
- To: (unknown charset) <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
My comment wasn’t that audio description needed to be a separate point. Just that audio description was no longer required by the current combination Here is a longer treatment along with a suggestion for fixing it. Gregg ------------------------------------------- Checkpoint 1.2 Synchronize media equivalents with time-dependent presentations. -------------------------------------------- This checkpoint is currently broken as written The checkpoint asks for Equivalents to be Synchronized -- but it does not require that any be provided other than what is required in 1.1. "Synchronize media equivalents with time-dependent presentations." The first CRITERIA however requires audio equivalents be provided. It doesn’t say anything about synchronization. *** A FIX -- Change the checkpoint to read "PROVIDE AND sychronize media equivalents with time-dependent presentations" OR "PROVIDE sychronized media equivalents with time-dependent presentations" IF THE CHANGE IS MADE THEN Then the success criteria WOULD PASS the test for Necessary and Sufficient to meet the new checkpoint. And audio description would be required. 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 Jason White Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:44 PM To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: Agenda Thursday, 9 August, 20 Hours UTC, on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038, with the following agenda: 1. Combining old checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 (i.e., whether "auditory descriptions" should occupy a separate checkpoint as Gregg has suggested). 2. Checkpoint 2.1 (revised text as in forthcoming draft). 3. Whether checkpoint 4.1 is redundant (discussed at the close of last week's meeting). 4. Any other issues that need to be resolved before the draft is released publicly via the TR page. Issues involving major changes, or which are highly controversial, should be postponed until the working draft has been made available for public review.
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 06:35:06 UTC