RE: June 13 Telecon Highlights

I started to write an email to suggest a change to the wording of the
exception statement under minimum success criteria #2, but then realized
that I wasn't so sure about the appropriateness of my recommendation, so
I'm instead asking for opinions on the matter in general.

Right now, the exception statement says that dialogue and sounds do not
have to be synchronously captioned in an audio-only format, and if the
content is not time-sensitive and not interactive. 

Here is my question: would the same exception apply to video content
under some circumstances?

For example, if you have a video clip that doesn't have a lot of content
that is particularly visual in nature (e.g. a video clip of a professor
giving a lecture while standing at a podium), I don't see a compelling
reason to add synchronous captions at a minimum conformance level. It
seems to me that a transcript would be sufficient. At level 2 or 3, I
think we can be justified in saying that the video ought to have
synchronous captions, but at a minimum level, I just don't think it's
necessary.

Maybe we could say something like this (this is wordy, but it has all of
the elements): 

"Exception: For non-interactive, non-time-sensitive, real-time Web
content which is primarily or exclusively audio-based, a transcript or
other non-audio equivalent is sufficient."

NOTE: I also think that the phrase "transcript or other non-audio
equivalent" should be changed to reflect the idea of using a standard
character set in a text-based format, as per the teleconference
discussion, but I didn't know how to word it, so I left it as is for
now. 

Paul Bohman
Technology Coordinator
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Center for Persons with Disabilities
www.cpd.usu.edu
Utah State University
www.usu.edu 





-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:55 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: June 13 Telecon Highlights
Importance: High



Highlights from June 13 telecon:

Cynthia, Paul and Wendy's proposal
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/05/cp1-2.html) for checkpoint 1.2, was
reviewed with discussion focusing primarily on edits to the minimum
level success criteria. A new draft of the proposal based on the
discussion can be reviewed at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/06/17-cp1-2.html.   
Gregg and Ben are working on a new checkpoint for Guideline 1 that is
focused on providing information needed for unambiguous decoding of the
characters and words in content. The new checkpoint will address the
issue of missing vowel marks (such as in Hebrew) and will incorporate
discussion of character set remapping (text must map back to (whatever
international group says) character set) 
New Issues (tracked with experimental issue tracking tool): 
Accessible rebroadcasts (see
http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=647) 
Character encoding (see
http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=649) 
real-time or interactive presentation and deaf-blindness (see
http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=650) 
checkpoint (or definition) about use of standard character set (see
http://cgi.w3.org/ETA/issues.php3/wai/wcag/?issues_id=648) 
(General Comment) In discussing the checkpoint 1.2 proposal, John Slatin
suggested that we should avoid using language that ensures that the user
can achieve the author's intention. Instead, we should say that the
author has provided an equivalent that achieves the purpose of the
content.

Received on Monday, 17 June 2002 17:39:10 UTC