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

"Multimedia alternatives" in 1.1 (was Re: Re issue 330: proposed wording to replace "explicitly associated")

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:31:17 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A03317FA1@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I'm concerned about the following item in the L1 success criteria for
1.1 (this is L1 SC 1.d in the 30 July WD, or L1 SC 3.d in the version I
proposed earlier today [1]):
D. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to guideline 1.2; or,
It's not clear what is meant by "multimedia alternatives."  It could be:
(1) Captions and audio descriptions-- the media alternatives mentioned
in 1.2; or
(2) Text versions of the captions and audio descriptions  (because,
strictly speaking, current-generation captions and audio descriptions
are types of "non-text content").  If this is correct, then presumably
the difference between this L1 requirement and the L3 requirement for a
single document containing textual versions of the captions and audio
descriptions in the order in which they occur in the multimedia is that
L1 does not require that these text alternatives be compiled in a single
On the assumption that the intended meaning was something like (2)
above, I propose the following:
D. Captions  and audio descriptions required under guideline 1.2 are
provided in machine-readable form (e.g., as text); or

"Good design is accessible design." 
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/


Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 14:31:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC