- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:00:10 +0000 (UTC)
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I'm not sure I understand this at all.
> 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]):
>
> <blockquote>
> D. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to guideline 1.2; or,
> </blockquote>
I really don't know what this means. Captions and descriptions aren't
"alternatives"; John and I already discussed that. (You do not *swap out*
a video file *for* captions. You *add* captions. Same with descriptions.)
It is imaginable that the intent here is to permit authors to provide e.g.
transcripts (for audio only) or maybe a GIF animation or something. In the
former case, I don't see how this is an "alternative"; you don't want to
remove the audio file just to give the visitor a transcript. In the latter
case, I'm thinking of something like the widely-unsupported vapourware
known as the object element, something schematically like:
<object>
{Flash animation}
<object>
{Animated GIF}
<object>
{Still image}
</object>
</object>
</object>
I'd just prefer to make the Flash accessible, but that construct is at
least totally legal under HTML.
Hence I don't think the rest of John's formulation in his message is
relevant for the simple reason that the criterion he's talking about is so
badly worded it needs to be removed and replaced with something else.
However:
> <proposed>
> D. Captions and audio descriptions required under guideline 1.2 are
> provided in machine-readable form (e.g., as text); or
> </proposed>
Oh, God, no. Bitmap captions are still captions, and how many times must I
remind the Working Group that audio descriptions are *audio* and not text?
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 16:00:15 UTC