- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:08:07 -0500 (CDT)
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> It is true that "audio description is not a text alternative."
It is not *any* kind of "alternative." It is not a *substitute* for
something else. You cannot *swap in* audio description the way you can
swap in alt text.
> The "text alternative" is one type of "equivalent alternative." Audio
> description is an "equivalent alternative" for the video portion of
> multimedia content.
No, it is not.
> And people who are blind do indeed enjoy films and
> television shows and theatrical performances relying exclusively on
> audio description as an equivalent alternative.
That is false. Listeners of audio description *also hear the main audio*.
John, please, give it up. I've listened to hundreds of hours of described
television and film, I've written description scripts, and I've sat in on,
and actually coproduced, audio-descriptionrecording sessions. Audio
descriptions, like captions, are *additions* and not *alternatives*.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 13:08:10 UTC