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

RE: Captions and audio descriptions

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:49:57 -0800
Message-ID: <DC9D05204B1E16419D62C12561C93221064CA38C@p01exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Collated could also be dropped as long as alternative is 
> singular.  It would be of no benefit for the audio transcript 
> to be in one file and the video
> description in another.   

Is there an advantage to having the audio and video alternatives in the
same file if not collated?

In fact, to Joe Clark's often reiterated point, we don't really know
much about how people use or like collated transcripts.  There are few
available at present.  (http://www.dignubia.org/galleries/video.php, all
transcripts are collated, although some have few descriptions).

There is legitimate concern that the descriptions may be needed less
consistently than the captions, and that the descriptions may be long
enough to be distracting to someone who doesn't need the description
information, for example if a video or its alternative is viewed
repeatedly by a user and they are increasingly familiar with the content
of the descriptions but need to focus on the language used.  It might be
just as useful to have the audio alternative with links to the video
alternative bits at appropriate places.  It might not - we don't know.

Also, there is the issue of multiple languages that pops up.  I can
create a movie that has 2, 5, or more different audio tracks that are
selectable by the player preferences.  

Explicitly stating that a single alternative is needed may not be the
best way to go.  Could we leave it open and have techniques?

AWK
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 19:50:32 GMT

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