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

Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 21:02:46 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021202182515.0241c5e0@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

We received several comments on the 28 August 2002 draft about checkpoint
1.2 [10].  Andi Snow-Weaver, John Slatin, and others have proposed changes 
to this checkpoint.  There has been discussion both on the list and at 
teleconferences.

With this email I outline thirteen proposals (including those already 
discussed but not yet included in an internal draft) to address the issues 
with this checkpoint. Let's attempt to resolve as many of the issues with 
discussion on the mailing list and reserve the teleconference time for 
larger issues.

==========

Comment #1
- WWAAC (via David Poulson and Colette Nicolle), 4 Nov 2002 [0]
minimum level success criteria #1: Wording of this section is unwieldy and 
difficult to follow.
- SAP (via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 [9]
Is this point talking about replacing the existing soundtrack with an 
alternate audio, or having an alternate audio available in addition to the 
existing soundtrack?

Proposal #1
Accept John Slatin's rewording (with Gregg Vanderheiden and Lee Robert's 
input) of the minimum level success criterion #1 [1]:

1. an audio description is provided of all significant visual information 
in scenes, actions and events that cannot be perceived from the sound track 
alone.

Note: When adding audio description to existing materials, the amount of 
information conveyed through audio description is constrained by the amount 
of available space available in the existing audio track.  It may also be 
impossible or inappropriate to freeze the  audio/visual program to insert 
additional audio description.

==========

Comment #2
Bill Mason, 28 Aug 2002 [4]
Minimum level success criterion 2: exempts news and emergency information 
from captioning, yet below in Example 2 a news story about an emergency is 
captioned.

Proposal #2
Reword the exception to:
"If the Web content is real-time and audio-only and not time-sensitive and 
not interactive a transcript or other non-audio equivalent is sufficient."
Rationale:  The exception is difficult to decipher. The exception currently 
reads, "if the Web content is real-time audio-only, if not time-sensitive 
(news, emergency, etc.), and not interactive, a transcript or other 
non-audio equivalent is sufficient."  I *think* that the comma and "if" 
after "audio-only" implies an "and" but I'm not sure.
If I have interpreted this correctly and since example 2 is a news story 
that *is* time-sensitive a transcript or other non-audio equivalent is 
*not* sufficient.  (but - why? it seems that the only time audio-only media 
needs to be captioned is when it is interactive...I must admit I'm a bit 
confused by this one).

==========

Comment #3
IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002 [8]
Benefits: The Note ends with a sentence that sounds like a success 
criteria: "Where possible, provide content so that it does not require 
dual, simultaneous attention or so that it gives the user the ability to 
effectively control/pause different media signals."

Proposal #3
Accept Andi Snow-Weaver's proposal (that reflects mailing list and telecon 
discussion) [3] of a new success criterion at level 3:
3. The presentation does not require the user to view captions and the 
visual presentation simultaneously in order to understand the content.

==========

Proposal #4
Accept John Slatin's rewording of the definition of audio description [2]:
  audio descriptions are equivalents of visual information from actions, 
body language, graphics, and scene changes.  Audio descriptions are voiced 
(either by a human or
a speech synthesizer) and synchronized with the multimedia presentation.

==========

Proposal #5
Accept John Slatin's rewording of the Note that appears in the Benefits [2]:
Note: Time-dependent presentations requiring people to use a single sense 
to follow two or more things at the same time may present significant 
barriers to some users. Depending on the nature of the of presentation, it 
may be possible to avoid scenarios where, for example, a deaf user would be 
required to watch an action on the screen and read the captions at the same 
time. However, this would not be achievable for live broadcasts (e.g. a 
football game). Where possible, provide content so that it does not require 
tracking multiple simultaneous events with the same sense, or give the user the
ability to effectively control different media signals independently.

==========

Proposal #6
Accept Andi Snow-Weaver's new example [3].   need to clarify that this is 
not an example of minimum level conformance, but of level 3.  do we need to 
label other examples?
Example 4: a cooking video (level 3).
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.

==========

Comment #7
Ian Jacobs, 06 Oct 2002 [5]
Normative exclusions appear in provisions 2, 4, and after 6. (refer to 
comments on exclusions and inclusions)

Proposal #7
No change proposed at this time.
Rationale: Need more research. It is not clear that moving all of the 
exceptions to one spot will make the success criteria easier to 
understand.  It could decrease understandability if people do not easily or 
correctly identify the exceptions with the criteria.  The exceptions might 
also be ignored if not included with the criteria.

==========

Comment #8
Ian Jacobs, 06 Oct 2002 [5]
(level 2 success criterion #3) "for all live broadcasts that are 
professionally produced." The term "professional" is subject to much 
interpretation. Does this mean "high quality" or "for money"?

Proposal #8
reword to: provide captions and audio descriptions for live, commercially 
produced broadcasts.
Rationale: From what I remember, we were trying to target live broadcasts 
where it is feasible (i.e., the producer could afford) to provide real-time 
captioning.  Also, there are several comments about writing criteria in 
active voice, so I attempted that, also.

==========

Comment #9
- Diane Dent, 21 Oct 2002 [6]
level 2 success criterion #1 seems to be missing a word.
- IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002 [8]
Level 2 success criterion #1 should be moved to Level 3

Proposal #9
No change proposed.
Rationale: Diane and Andi commented on the 22 August draft.  In the 28 
August draft this criterion was reworded. While we might be able to write 
it more clearly, I don't believe it is missing a word nor that it should be 
moved to level 3.
It currently reads, "the audio description has been reviewed and is 
believed to include all significant visual information in scenes, actions 
and events (that can't be perceived from the sound track) to the extent 
possible given the constraints posed by the existing audio track (and 
constraints on freezing the audio/visual program to insert additional 
auditory description)."

==========

Comment #10
Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [7]
Minimum level success criterion 5: The way it currently reads suggests 
there are 2 conditions #5 is meant to cover.  Should the sentences be split 
into separate bullets or rewritten?

Proposal #10
Reword minimum level success criterion #5 to:
If the Web content is real-time non-interactive video (e.g., a Webcam of 
ambient conditions), either provide an equivalent that conforms to 
checkpoint 1.1 (e.g., an ongoing update of weather conditions) or link to 
an equivalent that conforms to checkpoint 1.1 (e.g., a link to a weather 
Web site).

Rationale:
It currently reads, "if the Web content is real-time non-interactive video 
(e.g. a Webcam of ambient conditions), an accessible alternative is 
provided that achieves the purpose of the video. If the author's purpose is 
to provide real-time information, a media equivalent is provided that 
conforms to checkpoint 1.1, or a link is provided to content elsewhere 
which conforms to checkpoint 1.1 (e.g. a link to a weather Web site)."

Basically we're saying "either provide an equivalent yourself or link to 
one," right?  If so, then I think we can simplify the criterion as proposed.

==========

Comment #11
IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002 [8]
Level 2 success criterion #3 {now #4} ends with the phrase "... view only 
the captions, the captions with the audio, or both together." "Both 
together" is the same as "the captions with the audio".

Proposal #11
Adopt Andi's proposal, "only the captions, only the audio, or both together".

==========

Comment #12
SAP (via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 [9]
Minimum level success criterion #2: Why is captioning considered the 
minimum? For non-real-time, wouldn't transcripts be OK? At least in cases 
where the video is not conveying majorly important information, for example 
if it's a video of an executive speaking at a conference.

Proposal #12
No change proposed.
Rationale:  Captioning is required as a minimum because there is visual 
information even when the video is an executive speaking at a conference: 
facial expressions, gestures, clothing, and other non-verbal cues convey 
information.

==========

Comment #13
SAP (via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 [9]
level 3 success criterion #1: How is {a text document (a "script")...} 
different from a transcript? This would be much easier to meet than the 
current minimum criteria

Proposal #13
Reword level 3 success criterion #1 as:
provide a text document that merges all audio descriptions and captions 
into a single transcript (in WCAG 1.0 referred to as a "collated text 
transcript").
Rationale: This attempts to clarify what goes into the text document and 
for people  familiar with WCAG 1.0 uses the old terminology.

==========

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0135.html
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0306.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0127.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0159.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0239.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0020.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0076.html
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0111.html
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0117.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0130.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/10/comments-WD-WCAG20-20020822.html#cp1-2

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 21:01:14 GMT

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