W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2 (UPDATED per discussion at 11/7 meeting)

From: Ken Kipnes <Ken.Kipnes@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:45:20 -0500
Message-ID: <00bf01c28a7b$a9fa9f60$ace7028a@us.oracle.com>
To: "Doyle" <dburnett@sesa.org>, "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>, "'Andi Snow-Weaver'" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Doyle,

This was actual captioning and not subtitles, is that correct?

regards,

ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doyle" <dburnett@sesa.org>
To: "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>; "'Andi Snow-Weaver'"
<andisnow@us.ibm.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2 (UPDATED per
discussion at 11/7 meeting)


>
> Good Morning From Icy Anchorage
>
> Anyway, to follow-up on our on-going discussion of simultaneous events
> related to captioning of video, I did locate one bit of research that
refers
> to, "Time Spent Viewing Captions On Television Programs", American Annals
of
> the Deaf, Volume 145 #5 (if anyone wants the full citing, let me know).
>
> Although this research does not look at some of the specifics we were
> addressing, it does look at the amount of time a deaf user spends looking
at
> visual content vs. captions and off screen events (looking away for some
> reason). There were no differences between age group, sexes or types of
> programming (type of television program).
>
> In short, 82% of a viewers time was spent focusing on captions (true for
all
> in study).  When the caption speed was increased, the time spent on
captions
> went up to 86%.  2% of the time, those researched gazed off screen.
>
> I know this does not really address the full issue we were discussing but
> maybe this will be helpful as we continue our dialogue.  In essence, those
> of us who are blind or sighted can listen to certain types of audio/visual
> material and gather quite a bit of what happened without seeing the screen
> while a deaf individual must be glued to the screen at least 86% of the
time
> to gather the same information.  Guess this means they need a runner to go
> grab them a cold beer...kidding!
>
> Anyway, hope this is a little helpful
>
> --
> Doyle Burnett
> Education Specialist
> Multiple Disabilities Program
> 907-562-7372
> > From: "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>
> > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:57:28 -0700
> > To: "'Andi Snow-Weaver'" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> > Subject: RE: Level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2 (UPDATED per
> > discussion at  11/7 meeting)
> > Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:57:35 -0500 (EST)
> >
> >
> > The concerns that Joe brought up about simultaneous captions and other
> > visual content are valid concerns. Most of the time, captions can be
> > viewed at the same time as the other events on the screen without too
> > much difficulty, especially with practice.
> >
> > There are some cases where there may be some legitimate conflicts. For
> > example, if the screen shows a lengthy list of sports scores at the same
> > time that a voice in the background is explaining something (and not
> > just reading the text on the screen), this could be difficult to follow.
> > The viewer's attention would be divided between the captions and the
> > other text on the screen.
> >
> > Still, as Joe pointed out, the norm right now for captioning would be to
> > allow the captioning to proceed even if there is a potential visual
> > conflict, requiring the viewer to pay attention to both the captions and
> > the other visual elements simultaneously. It would be difficult for the
> > WAI to require that all broadcasts be adapted from their original format
> > to insert pauses where there may be a conflict with captioning and other
> > visual elements. And it would be impossible to implement such pauses in
> > live broadcasts. In fact, to truly implement this success criterion,
> > directors, actors and script writers would have to change their
> > procedures. The chef (to use the example from the previous message)
> > would have to change her behavior. She would have to make sure that she
> > explains nothing while performing the actions, and that she fully
> > explains the actions either before or after performing them.
> >
> > But, as it stands right now, this is a Level 3 success criterion.
> > Captioners would not be required to implement this technique at either
> > the Minimum level or Level 2. Maybe we are justified in keeping this
> > success criterion based on that fact alone, however...
> >
> > The real question is whether such a technique would be beneficial to
> > users with disabilities. The user group that may benefit most may be
> > those with cognitive disabilities, but this is just a guess. I don't
> > personally know of any research in this area (though it may exist) which
> > suggests that it would be better to not provide captions while something
> > important is happening elsewhere on the screen. If research exists, and
> > if this conclusion is accurate, then it would be wise to keep this
> > success criterion in the guidelines at Level 3. If there is no body of
> > research in that area, or if the research is inconclusive, I would
> > recommend removing the success criterion.
> >
> > I say this because I can imagine one set of experts arguing that it is
> > actually *better* to provide the explanation simultaneously with the
> > demonstration (as in the chef example). I tend to think that it would be
> > better for me if the visual demonstration and the verbal explanation
> > occurred at the same time, even if it does require me to view captions
> > and the visual demonstration simultaneously. I haven't researched this
> > myself. I am only postulating, but if no one else has any solid research
> > either, it may be better to leave this one out of the guidelines.
> >
> > 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 Andi Snow-Weaver
> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:19 AM
> > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2 (UPDATED per
> > discussion at 11/7 meeting)
> >
> >
> >
> > Amended as per discussion at yesterday's call:
> >
> > Level 3 success criteria
> >
> > 3. The presentation does not require the user to view captions and the
> > visual presentation simultaneously in order to understand the content.
> >
> > and the modified informative example would be...
> >
> > A cooking video shows a chef preparing a recipe. The chef describes the
> > ingredients and the process for each step and then performs the step. In
> > this manner, deaf users can read the voice captions first and then watch
> > the demonstration.
> >
> > Andi
> > andisnow@us.ibm.com
> > IBM Accessibility Center
> > (512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able
> > Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2002 13:46:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT