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

Re: Captions and audio descriptions

From: Roberto Ellero <rellero@webaccessibile.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:20:57 +0100
Message-ID: <004701c5e4b2$b4208970$0200a8c0@acerre>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Loretta Guarino Reid:
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.

Roberto Ellero:
Thanks Loretta, I agree and hope the way is people first, before thinking
about "difficulty" (with a few hours of training surmountable,
technically... but not for hermeneutics), even if I think that the problem
be "work required to" in this case... not a simple question, but I'd prefer
we are exigent rather than polite toward Content editors, in an educational
point of view.
Yes, if we are going to keep captions and audio descriptions at level 1, as
I hope, perhaps there is no need to require a text equivalent as well, but
they are different ways,  each other integrating, to give a better service 
and quality.
In a multimedia object, whether as in my example or in a musical movie, for
example, in origin is ever a text.
Integrating synchronized alternatives and together providing the scenario
(the original text, in music if possible the score) would be the best
service: not a replacement but a completion.

Best regards,
Roberto Ellero





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>
To: "Roberto Ellero" <rellero@webaccessibile.org>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: Captions and audio descriptions



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 22:21:17 GMT

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