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

RE: Captions and audio descriptions

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:04:24 -0800
Message-ID: <0DAF2B31FBCEB6439F63FA7F91601F743A2603@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Roberto Ellero" <rellero@webaccessibile.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I think we are all in agreement that captions and audio descriptions are
more useful than the sort of text equivalent we are proposing. Keeping
the current SC at level 1 is definitely still one option the group could
adopt. 

This proposal was an attempt to find a middle ground for those who think
that producing captions and audio descriptions is too difficult for
level 1. The working group still needs to decide whether this is a
change it wants to adopt.

The text equivalent would be a replacement for the multimedia, not
something that is used with it. Your example demonstrates why a text
equivalent may be more complex than just a transcript of captions.

I don't think requiring both a complete text equivalent and captions and
audio descriptions at level 1 was being considered. If we are going to
keep captions and audio descriptions at level 1, there is no need to
require a text equivalent as well. 


Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Roberto Ellero
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:27 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Captions and audio descriptions
> 
> 
> Loretta Guarino Reid:
> 
> Ah, now I understand your concern. I agree that there needs to be only
a
> single file that is the equivalent of the multimedia. If we provide
> suitable examples and sufficient techniques, is the following
rewording
> correct?
> <new proposal>
> At level 1:
> 1. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
> * captions, or
> * a text alternative that conveys the same information as the
> multimedia.
> 
> 2. For prerecorded multimedia, one of the following is provided:
> * audio descriptions, or
> * a text alternative that conveys the same information as the
> multimedia.
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> Roberto Ellero:
> 
> In my opinion, to evaluate this solution for L1 prerecorded
multimedia, we
> have to consider the real experience of the blind and deaf users.
> 
> A very simple example: a short excerpt from Shakespeare's Richard III,
Act
> I, Scene 2.
> 
> We have a video track and a sound track.
> 
> The scenario is the following text:
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> RICHARD
> The self-same name, but one of
> better nature.
> 
> ANNE
> Where is he?
> 
> RICHARD
> Here.
> 
> (She spits at him)
> 
> Why dost thou spit at me?
> 
> ANNE
> Would it were mortal poison, for
> thy sake!
> 
> RICHARD
> Never came poison from so sweet a
> place.
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> In this MP3 file you listen to the jaws' synthesis of the text (= text
> alternative that convey the same information as the multimedia):
> 
> http://www.robertoellero.it/jaws_richard.mp3
> 
> Otherwise it is possible to put as text alternative (same function of
> synch. audio description) the only original caption, "(She spits at
him)",
> but obviously it is not easy to understand the exact
> position of it, while listening to the original sound track.
> 
> Very frustrating experience.
> 
> In this MP3 file you listen to the original sound track with the audio
> caption added with MAGpie (= audio description synchronized):
> 
> http://www.robertoellero.it/richard_soundtracks.mp3
> 
> I think the first file (text alternative) is a good solution for 1.1,
not
> for 1.2 ("requirements for
> *synchronized* alternatives for multimedia").
> 
> So the solution for prerecorded multimedia, in my opinion, is both the
> following is provided:
> audio descriptions (continuous equivalent) *and* text alternative that
> convey the same information as the multimedia.
> 
> The same for deaf people, but notice that what is lost in the first
MP3  -
> for a blind user - is intonation, nuances, expressivity, rhythm, and
what
> is
> lost in a not synchronized text alternative
> (instead of captioning) - for a deaf user - is the impossibility to
> associate the captions with what is happening in the video track.
> 
> (Accessibility Features of SMIL, W3C NOTE 21 September 1999)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL-access/
> "A presentation may occupy multiple sensory channels (eyes, ears, and
> touch)
> in parallel. Any content, including alternative content, that is
presented
> to a given sense must be coordinated to ensure
> that it remains intelligible when rendered with other content meant
for
> that
> sense. [...] This does not mean creating a
> great number of separate presentations but rather one integrated and
> accessible presentation."
> 
> As I've already said, I think the better solution is to maintain
captions
> and audio descriptions to L1.
> 
> Best regards,
> Roberto Ellero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 21:04:04 GMT

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