W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Audio description (was: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 [action item])

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:37:52 -0500
To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000002372837@spamarrest.com>


I don't understand your comment.

Captions are an alternative and you don't watch a show with just the

Audio description is an alternative to the video portion.  And many blind
people do indeed watch shows with only the audio and audio descriptions.

It is not a complete alternative in most shows.  But then again captions
aren't either.  Captions don't include most intonation and much is lost. 

Please explain what you mean by your comments below. 


 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Joe Clark
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: Audio description (was: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 [action item])

> We can't move all of 1.2 to 1.1 because audio description is not a text
> alternative.

It's not any kind of alternative. It's an addition. Try watching a movie 
with *just* the audio description.

By the way, I think the original message was a new record for 2004-- six 
top-postings. Ph.D.s continue to be unable to use E-mail.


    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Monday, 21 June 2004 23:38:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC