W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7)

From: Yvette Hoitink <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:06:27 +0200
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1DRSOH-0002VY-Le@maggie.w3.org>

John Slatin wrote:
> 
> <blockquote>
> Joe writes:
> <blockquote>
> So you want 24-hour talk-radio stations to spend millions of 
> dollars every year posting transcripts several days after the fact?
> 
> </blockquote>
> 
> Sorry: my first response was stupid and I apologize.
> 
> The answer, though, is that *if* a 24-hour talk radio station 
> archives its broadcasts and posts them to the Web, and *if* 
> that station wants to claim conformance to WCAG 2.0, then 
> yes, I want them to post transcripts.  It's do-able.  NPR 
> does it. Voice of America does it.
> 
> I know those aren't 24-hour talk radio stations. 
> Nevertheless, I do think those transcripts should be required 
> *if* the station wants to claim conformance.
> 

I agree with John here. We're setting the bar for what's accessible. Radio
broadcasts without transcripts aren't accessible, and our guidelines
shouldn't allow them to claim otherwise. 

But that doesn't mean we require talk radio stations to transcribe
everything. It's up to policy makers to decide which content should conform
at which level: for example 10% of broadcasts need to conform to at least
level 1. For a 24-hour talk radio station, it might be that only their news
items are transcribed and the rest of their broadcasts are not made
accessible. This could explained in a conformance statement where the
majority of the broadcasts are scoped out. 

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl 
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 10:06:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC