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

FW: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments

From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:15:37 -0600
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F0074B9DB1@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I sent this several days ago, but evidently sent it only to Wendy and not to
the entire list.  Apologies for the delay! And thanks to Wendy for catching
it.

John

At 04:07 PM 12/5/02, you wrote:
>Wendy, thanks for compiling this-- extremely helpful.  Comments below-- 
>I've stripped out everything except for the item(s) I'm commenting on, 
>as per Greg's practice.
>
>John Slatin, Ph.D.
>Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
>University of Texas at Austin
>1 University Station G9600
>FAC 248C
>Austin, TX 78712
>ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
>email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
>web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
>
>
>
>==========
>
>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.
>
>[js editorial only: "... Available space available..." should be 
>""space available" ] ==========
>
>
>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.
>[js:] I'd suggest changing "view captions" to "read captions"-- reading is
a
>more complex activity than viewing.
>
>==========
>
>
>======
>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.
>
>[js] I agree with this proposal, and *strongly* endorse use of active 
>voice! Sentences in active voice are (usually) easier to read and make 
>it easier for readers to figure out who does what to whom.  They're 
>also easier to control when you write them!
>
>==========
>
>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)."
>
>[js] I'd suggest changing the wording here to match the new proposed 
>wording for the checkpoint.  I also suggest deleting everything from 
>"...to the extent possible" to the end of the sentence.  Rationale: 
>reviewers are responsible for determining whether the audio description 
>is sufficient, not whether it might have been technically possible to 
>freeze the video.  If reviewers say the description isn't adequate, it 
>would then be up to the developers/authors to figure out if they could 
>freeze the video to drop in expanded description.
>
>==========
>
>
>[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/
>/--

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 17:15:45 GMT

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