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

Re: Practical reality

From: Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. - <ueki@infoaxia.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 07:25:45 +0900
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-Id: <20051106063314.92F1.UEKI@infoaxia.co.jp>

Hello Roberto and everyone,

Thanks again for your comments, Roberto. I understood the situation in
Italy and your thoughts.

My question was for not only captioning and audio description issues but
also WCAG 2.0 as a whole. And my concern is if WCAG WG has reached
consensus or not.

Have the WCAG WG reached the consensus that WCAG 2.0 don't consider the
"practical reality"? In other words, Will we just define what the
accessible web content is in WCAG 2.0? I'd like to make sure if WCAG WG
has consensus on this point.


Cheers,
Makoto


On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:08:29 +0100
"Roberto Ellero" <rellero@webaccessibile.org> wrote:

> 
> Makoto:
> My point is that I'd like to know WCAG 2.0 need to consider the
> "practical reality" or not. If not, it should be L1. If consider, it can
> be L2. My decision on L1 or L2 depend on it.
> 
> Ellero:
> My comments and practical test on prerecorded multimedia were just to say
> that captioning and audio descriptions for prerecorded components are, with
> a few hours of training, easy and doable for everybody, so L1 for 1.2
> SC1-SC2 is - in my experience - in your "CASE 2" (WCAG 2.0 consider the
> "practical reality").
> 
> Although "real time captioner" is already a real career [1], a technical
> difficulty is rather in real-time captioning (L2), in fact in italian law
> ("Stanca Act", Law n. 4, January 9, 2004 [2]) the applicability (Technical
> Requirements) of multimedia accessibility distinguishes between prerecorded
> and real time multimedia [3]:
> 
> "Requirement No 18
> Terms: Where a film or a multimedia presentation is essential for the
> completeness of the information or service provided, provide a synchronised
> equivalent textual alternative, in the form of sub-titles or an auditory
> description, or provide a summary or simple label for each video or
> multimedia elements, taking account of the degree of importance or
> difficulty in the case of real-time transmission.
> WCAG 1.0 References: 1.3, 1.4 - Sec. 508 References: 1194.22 (b)"
> 
> Best regards,
> Roberto Ellero
> 
> 
> 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/jobs/microsites/steno/index.shtml
>     http://www.bbc.co.uk/jobs/microsites/steno/day_in_the_life.shtml
> 2. http://www.pubbliaccesso.it/normative/law_20040109_n4.htm
> 3. http://www.pubbliaccesso.it/normative/DM080705-A-en.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. -" <ueki@infoaxia.co.jp>
> To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Practical reality [captioning L1 or L2]
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Roberto,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> <blockquote>
> >From a technical point of view, I think it is really easy for the authors
> to make synchronized alternatives tracks, and in my opinion 1.2 L1 SC1
> and 1.2 L1 SC2 have the same greatest importance in Multimedia
> accessibility, so I think the better solution is to maintain them to L1.
> 
> Without synchronized alternatives movies, animations or slide shows will
> be a barrier for deaf or hearing impaired, blind or visually impaired
> viewers
> and for people with cognitive disabilities, and Multimedia is increasingly
> important on the Web.
> </blockquote>
> 
> I understood the imporatnce of the captioning and audio description for
> the multimedia accessibility for people with disabilities and it also
> can benefit people without disabilities.
> 
> My point is that I'd like to know WCAG 2.0 need to consider the
> "practical reality" or not. If not, it should be L1. If consider, it can
> be L2. My decision on L1 or L2 depend on it.
> 
> I'm relatively new to the group and thought people in the working group
> seem not to have same standpoint when thinking about captioning and
> audio description. I'd like to confirm it in order to reach the
> consensus.
> 
> As Andi wrote in another discussion, "Part of what we struggle with in
> trying to reach consensus is that we all have different environments
> that we represent." We need to discuss any issues based on the same
> premise reached consensus in the working group.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Makoto
> 
> 
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 19:11:54 +0100
> "Roberto Ellero" <rellero@webaccessibile.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Makoto:
> > At the today's teleconference, we discussed the captioning and the audio
> > description. It'll depend on the premise the WCAG WG has.
> > CASE 1:
> > WCAG 2.0 doesn't consider the "practical reality" but will define what
> > the accessible web content is.
> > In this case, we should keep the captioning and the audio description at
> > Level 1. But it is really hard for the authors to do that at this moment.
> > Both the captioning and the audio description require specialist expertise
> > to be done correctly. It could result in the situation that many web
> > designers/developers would give up the conformance with WCAG 2.0.
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > Ellero:
> > Of course I consider correct that the "practical reality" in Japanese
> > authoring is a great problem about captioning, but for the rest I really
> > think that making captions and audio descriptions synchronized with SAMI
> > and
> > SMIL in QuickTime, Real and WMP movies is not an issue of technical
> > difficulty, but "only" a "work required" issue.
> > In other words, Multimedia accessibility is in my opinion a part of
> > knowledge of Content editors. In fact, to make captions and audio
> > descriptions as in this examples in a my testing - in all formats - is
> > easy
> > and doable for everybody, using MAGpie or other tools [1]:
> >
> > http://www.test.robertoellero.it/elaborazioni_sottotitoli/
> > [needs to set wm and Real players to "show captions", the code is valid
> > and
> > crossbrowser using Object]
> >
> > On the contrary it is often difficult to "reconstruct" the scenario (the
> > original text) in order to communicate what is happening (not dialogical)
> > to
> > visually impaired users. That's an interpretative expertise for Content
> > editors, obviously, and an emphasis regard the importance of planning
> > multimedia content with accessibility in mind.
> >
> > >From a technical point of view, I think it is really easy for the authors
> > >to
> > make synchronized alternatives tracks, and in my opinion 1.2 L1 SC1 and
> > 1.2
> > L1 SC2 have the same greatest importance in Multimedia accessibility, so I
> > think the better solution is to maintain them to L1.
> >
> > Without synchronized alternatives movies, animations or slide shows will
> > be
> > a barrier for deaf or hearing impaired, blind or visually impaired
> > viewers and for people with cognitive disabilities, and Multimedia is
> > increasingly important on the Web.
> > Consider that the BBC, by 2008, will be providing subtitles on 100% of
> > programming across the entire BBC network (TV and Web). [2]
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Roberto Ellero
> >
> >
> > 1. http://www.captions.org/softlinks.cfm
> > 2. http://www.redbeemedia.com/access/index.shtml
> >     http://www.bbc.co.uk/jobs/microsites/steno/index.shtml
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

<以下、署名>
-- 
株式会社インフォアクシア 
植木 真 <ueki@infoaxia.co.jp>

TEL:0422-76-8515   FAX:0422-76-8515

Infoaxia, Inc.  - Solutions for Web Accessibility -
http://www.infoaxia.co.jp/
--------------------------------------------------------
Webアクセシビリティのポータルサイト
Infoaxia - Everything for Your Awareness and Practice -
http://www.infoaxia.com/
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 22:25:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT