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

Re: [1.2] issue summary and proposal

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:30:43 +1000
Message-ID: <16695.58723.223289.661514@jdc.local>
To: wendy@w3.org
Cc: wai-gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Wendy Chisholm writes:
 > 
 > Guideline 1.2 Provide alternatives for multimedia content.

What happens to time-dependent presentations that are entirely visul
or entirely auditory, but require time-based responses from the user?
These were, as I understand it, formerly covered under 1.2
("time-dependent presentations") but they are not multimedia. While
the interactive aspects of the user interface might be covered under
guideline 4.2 and the references to UAAG, the requirement for an
alternative to the non-text component appears to fall through the
cracks in the guidelines unless we apply 1.1 and make it clear that
the exception to guideline 1.1 is for multimedia only, to which 1.2 applies.

Guideline 1.2 could be rewritten to use the phrase: 
"alternatives to multimedia and other time-dependent presentations" or
"alternatives to time-dependent presentations"
 > 
 > Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.2
 > 1. Captions are provided for prerecorded multimedia.

Omit "pre-recorded". This is a policy issue that can be dealt with by scoping.
 > (Editorial note: Propose that we don't create exceptions, but that
 > policy makers create exceptions. Refer to Telecom Act of 1996 which
 > defines "broadcast hours" for which captions are required as well as a
 > staggered time frame for requiring captions for programs that aired
 > before 1 January 1998)

I agree with the editorial note for the reasons outlined at today's
meeting. As this issue was thoroughly covered at the meeting I won't
repeat the arguments here.
 > 2. Audio descriptions are provided for prerecorded multimedia.
 > (Editorial note: Again, we shouldn't create policy. Policy makers should
 > create it)

Again I agree with the editorial note but think the word "prerecorded"
contradicts the intentions stated in the editorial note, to remove
policy considerations from this guideline.
 > 3. Transcripts are provided for prerecorded audio-only content that
 > contain dialog
 > (Editorial note: this should not apply to music with lyrics. Should this
 > be an exception or is it clear enough?)
I think it's clear enough. You could say "spoken dialogue".
 > 4. A text alternative is provided for live audio-only content by
 > following Guideline 1.1.
 > (Editorial note: an internet radio stream would only need to provide a
 > description of the intent/character of the station, *not* every song
 > they play)

Instead of distinguishing between live/not live, why not require a
text alternative only at level 1, transcripts and captions at level 2?
The policy-maker's task would then be to decide under what
circumstances to require level 1 and under what circumstances level 2
for multimedia content. Under the currently proposed conformance
scheme, it should be recalled, the multimedia content would be a
separate resource to which conformance would be claimed by reference
to a URI; gone is the idea of a single, site-wide conformance claim
and all the problems of scoping it creates.
 > 5. A text alternative is provided for live video-only content by
 > following Guideline 1.1.
 > (Editorial note: webcams would only need a text alternative associated
 > with the concept that the cam is pointing at, *not* every image that is
 > captured)
Same comment as per previous item. "live/recorded" is only one of the
distinctions a policy maker might use in deciding what level of
conformance is required, i.e., text alternative or descriptions/captions.
 > 6. Applications that contain multimedia should follow Guidelines 4.1 and 4.2

Note the objections raised at today's teleconference. The proposed
language is unsatisfactory for these reasons.
 > 7. If content is rebroadcast from another medium, the accessibility
 > features are intact.
 > (Editorial note: this is an exception in the current draft. Many 
 > reviewers found it confusing so I made it a success criterion. Not sure 
 > this is the best approach)

The wording is good. The problem is that it isn't made clear that in
such a case the other success criteria don't apply.
 > 
 > Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.2
 > 1. Real-time captions are provided for live multimedia
 > 
 > Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.2
 > 1. Sign Language interpretations are provided for multimedia (either
 > real-time or prerecorded) in the language of the dialog

This is good. However "in the language of the dialogue" is
problematic. Suppose the dialogue is in English - should the sign
language interpretation be in Australian Sign Language, American Sign
Language, or something else?
Received on Friday, 3 September 2004 03:31:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC