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: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:29:52 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A03317D62@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Lee Roberts wrote:
<blockquote>
Joe is correct.  Audio is clearly not a text alternative.  It is used by
blind people listening to a television show.  However it is not
something that can be presented on a Braille display.

If the audio presentation was transcribed into an input for a Braille
display then it is no longer an audio presentation.  It becomes a text
alternative.

Therefore, Joe's assertion that audio presentations are not text
alternatives is correct.  Additionally moving all of 1.2 into 1.1 would
be an error.

</blockquote>

John Slatin says:
It is true that "audio description is not a text alternative." However,
the 18 June proposed wording for Guideline 1.1  [1]does not use the
phrase "text alternatives" in the actual guideline, but only in the
first Level 1 success criterion and its subparts a, b, and c.  Guideline
1.1 itself refers to "equivalent alternatives" (the word "text" is not
in there!).  The phrase "equivalent alternatives" is taken directly from
Guideline 1 in WCAG 1.0.[2]

The "text alternative" is one type of "equivalent alternative." Audio
description is an "equivalent alternative" for the video portion of
multimedia content. And people who are blind do indeed enjoy films and
television shows and theatrical performances relying exclusively on
audio description as an equivalent alternative.
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0696.html#star
t
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-provide-equivalents

"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lee Roberts
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 11:18 pm
To: 'WAI-GL'
Subject: RE: Audio description (was: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1
[action item])



Gregg,
Joe is correct.  Audio is clearly not a text alternative.  It is used by
blind people listening to a television show.  However it is not
something that can be presented on a Braille display.

If the audio presentation was transcribed into an input for a Braille
display then it is no longer an audio presentation.  It becomes a text
alternative.

Therefore, Joe's assertion that audio presentations are not text
alternatives is correct.  Additionally moving all of 1.2 into 1.1 would
be an error.

Lee Roberts
http://www.applepiecart.com

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 9:38 PM
To: 'Joe Clark'; 'WAI-GL'
Subject: RE: Audio description (was: New rewrite of Guideline 1.1
[action
item])


Joe

I don't understand your comment.

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

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

 -- ------------------------------
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
To: WAI-GL
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 Tuesday, 22 June 2004 11:29:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT