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

RE: Practical reality

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:12:53 +0100
To: <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>, <ueki@infoaxia.co.jp>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511060406640.SM01212@Inbox>

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Andrew Kirkpatrick"<akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
    Inviato: 06/11/05 3.14.53
    A: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "ueki@infoaxia.co.jp"<ueki@infoaxia.co.jp>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Practical reality
    I'm sorry?  Captions and audio description take the same amount of time
    as each other to add to a movie/multimedia?  

I told that for add captions and for add audio description the editor takes the same time for both (and not, as you have understand, that put a video with captions require the same time of a normal video
    I'd estimate that do do a good job of captioning takes between 5 and 10
    times the length of the media (e.g. a 5 minute movie will take 25-50
    minutes to caption).

Yes. This is a big problem? We want give the "A" ribbon to web pages that have content totally inaccessible for blind / deft people.
    For audio description, you're looking at more time, twice or more as
    much, at least.  
Using appropriate tools like Magpie (a 2001 tool, free) is more easy to made audio description

    And don't require particular skills?  If you use people who are not
    trained to do captioning or audio description what you wind up with is
    lousy captions or audio descriptions.  Audio descriptions are decidedly
    more difficult, in my opinion.  

For all alternative content for people with disabilities (also alt text, link groups, etc.) there is need of professionality. We are talking about wcag 2.0 conformance (and possibility future law conformance) and not only about amatorial web sites.
    I'm not sure if I follow your comment, but I haven't encountered too
    many data tables that I thought were more difficult to fix than an
    average length video that needs captions and audio descriptions.
Depends about your customer needs. Think a table with election results grouped by vote zone, party group, etc
    I agree Makoto - there is a disconnect that would be created when
    captions and audio descriptions (needed by users to gain access to
    content) are pushed to L2 and valid code (which doesn't always affect
    accessibility) is pushed to L1. I can understand why captions and audio
    descriptions might not both be L1 due to the difficulty of creating
    them, but it seems that if practical reality is not considered at all
    then we'll see captions and audio descriptions (live and recorded) and
    valid code all at L1 - I don't think that is the right approach, but do
    think that developers and legislators reading this document will expect
    to be able to understand why different items are at different levels and
    to what extent the placement is practical or hopeful.

You are asking to give no access to multimedia at level 1? I see a right for people with disability. Have we thinked that this could be a discrimination?
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 09:09:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC