W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: REwrite of 1.1.6

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:57:32 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B01248EC9@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
David writes:
 
<blockquote>
2)       Server side delivery technique which allows descriptions to be
turned off if desired.
 
The current wording allows the creation extended descriptions and allows
for a mechanism to be added for turning them off. Proprietary software
manufacturers
can also create their own techniques that would allow descriptions to be
turned off. The current wording makes sure there is a version available
where
descriptions are delivered in a linear order without forcing keystrokes
to be used after each caption. And I think that is a good thing. I don't
think
forcing screen reader users to jump around hundreds of times in a
document is fair. It is heartbreaking to work with blind people with
repetitive strain

</blockquote>
 
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. SC 1.1.6 (which is what this
discussion is about) requires a single document containing the text of
both the captions and the audio descriptions. As far as I know, this
document is not presented by the media player-- it's completely separate
from the multimedia presentation. There is nothing to turn on or off.
 
Current media players allow the user to toggle captions and audio
descriptions.
 
What am I missing?
 
John

"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/> 


 

 


________________________________

	From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David MacDonald
	Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:46 pm
	To: 'Andrew Kirkpatrick'; 'WCAG'
	Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6
	
	

	Andrew says:

	 

	>> that's not exactly true, if someone wants to address  1.2.5
to reach level 3 they might need to. [extended descriptions]

	 

	You are right.

	 

	1.1.6 For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined document
presenting captions and audio description transcription information in a
manner that allows users to access the information in linear order.

	 

	I would leave it as:

	1.1.6 For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined document
containing both captions
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#captionsdef>  and
transcripts of audio descriptions
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#audiodescdef>  of video
is available. [How to meet 1.1.6
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overvi
ew.html#text-equiv-text-doc> ] 

	And I would add 2 new advisory techniques. 

	 

	1)       Create "skip links" over descriptions in HTML

	2)       Server side delivery technique which allows
descriptions to be turned off if desired.

	 

	The current wording allows the creation extended descriptions
and allows for a mechanism to be added for turning them off. Proprietary
software manufacturers can also create their own techniques that would
allow descriptions to be turned off. The current wording makes sure
there is a version available where descriptions are delivered in a
linear order without forcing keystrokes to be used after each caption.
And I think that is a good thing. I don't think forcing screen reader
users to jump around hundreds of times in a document is fair. It is
heartbreaking to work with blind people with repetitive strain injury
(RSI). I think we should be helping people with disabilities, rather
than giving them compounded disabilities.

	 

	The current wording allows all the flexibility necessary I would
say. It says the combined document is available. It doesn't even say it
is the default presentation. And it allows for extended descriptions and
it allows for them to be turned off.

	 

	David MacDonald

	 

	...Access empowers people
	            ...barriers disable them...

	www.eramp.com

	
________________________________


	From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
	Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:39 PM
	To: David MacDonald; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
	Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6

	 

	David,

		Its fine if people want to create extended audio
descriptions...but they have absolutely no obligation to do that under
our guidelines. 

	that's not exactly true, if someone wants to address 1.2.5 to
reach level 3 they might need to.

		But if they want to do that, it is fine to introduce
code to jump *over* audio descriptions. However, I don't think users who
want to use descriptions should be required jump *to* the descriptions
and then back again to the captions hundreds of times just to read the
descriptions. That would be like reading a novel while turning on and
off the light - a degraded experience. 

	I've proposed this idea based on conversations I've had with a
blind user of audio description.  I don't think that it should always be
used, but it has its place, and not always as an enhanced version.  The
likelihod that we'll see multiple versions of audio descriptions
approaches zero.  I'd like the guideline to read something like:

	 

	 

	I probably don't have the words right, but I don't think that
when the best information we have is either anecdotal or "mesearch" that
the WCAG should be precluding viable techniques.

		 It's hard for me to imagine an organization that would
create extended descriptions to help blind people and then require them
to go through the experience of jumping back and forth every couple of
sentences just to get to them. To me that is counter intuitive. 

	We need better data from users before declaring that counter
intutive is incorrect.

		If they want to create extended descriptions, great, put
a "skip over" link for those who don't want to read them. Our current
wording completely allows that. But I don't think we should make people
who do want to use descriptions suffer by adding all kinds of
unnecessary keystrokes just to get to the information.

	I'm not suggesting that this will be the only way, or even the
most common way, just that it shouldn't be prohibited.

	AWK

		 

		 

		 

		Regards

		David MacDonald

		...Access empowers people
		            ...barriers disable them...

		www.eramp.com

		
________________________________


		From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
		Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:27 AM
		To: David MacDonald; Andrew Kirkpatrick; 'Gregg
Vanderheiden'; WCAG
		Subject: Re: REwrite of 1.1.6

		 

		David, I would potentially expect our transcript to
contain collated captions and extended audio descriptions, that is, all
the information needed to understand the visuals, not just the amount of
information that can fit in the gaps of the dialog in the audio. And for
something like a physics class, which is presenting complex visual
encodings of information, the audio description part might well be
something you'd like to skip over when scanning for some specific piece
of information.
		
		I think the goal here is not to require any specific
representation of the information, but to be sure the information is
available. I think any "text-based" representation which is an
accessible equivalent to the content should satisfy, whether it is a
plain text transcript, a marked-up html version of the information that
could contain skip links, or a version where there is a web-like
representation of the text with links to pieces of the content. 
		
		Loretta
		
		
		On 2/11/06 7:57 AM, "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>
wrote:

		>>What's the longest description you've needed to wade
through?  That might be a factor...
		
		It depends...The end of the movie "Apocalypse Now" had
long periods of no dialogue...In that case there would be quite a bit of
description between the  dialogue... Audio descriptions are limited to
the available space between dialogue so they are generally short.
		 
		In your example of the online professor...the
descriptions would be generally very short...especially in a lecture
series... and descriptions are limited to the space between the dialogue
on the video. I've never seen a professor who doesn't talk much in a
class. (oops sorry Gregg :-) )
		 
		I would also suggest that the example is not
"equivalent" to that of a sighted person but rather "enhanced" because
sighted people sit through the descriptions in the video, unless they
hit the fast forward button.
		 
		If we want to create that kind of "enhanced" experience
of skipping the descriptions then I suggest put the burden on the person
who wants the enhanced experience by putting in "skip description" links
(like a skip nav) that the user can use to bounce over the descriptions.
(kind of like the sighted person who would have to hit fast forward)
		 
		That way the default presentation includes the
descriptions (without having to bounce around) and the enhanced version
allows the user to skip over it with a link. 
		
		
		
		David MacDonald
		
		
		
		  

			
________________________________


			
			From: Gregg Vanderheiden
[mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu%5d>  
			Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:21 PM
			To: Andrew Kirkpatrick; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
			Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6
			
			Yes, I see what you are saying.    But I'm not
sure what value having the captions without the description would be?  
			
			
			
			Gregg
			
			 -- ------------------------------ 
			Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
			Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
			Director - Trace R & D Center 
			University of Wisconsin-Madison 
			The Player for my DSS sound file is at
http://tinyurl.com/dho6b  <http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  

				
________________________________


				
				From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] <mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d>
On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
				Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 5:04 PM
				To: Gregg Vanderheiden;
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
				Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6
				Not everyone will want to read the
descriptions intermixed with the captions.  As a result, while it is
fine to say that these different types of information should be mixed
together, it may not create the best experience.  one method that would
allow users to have easy access to the descriptions within a transcript
would be to link to the descriptions (the descriptions could be in the
same file, or even in a separate file) instead of to include the
description text directly. This way, the user could listen to the
description if desired, and skipped more easily.
				
				The reason I mentioned this was that
your suggested rewrite to 1.1.6 could potentially make this technique
insufficient to satisfy the requirement, and I want to make sure that
this would be allowed.
				
				Is that more clear?
				
				AWK

				
________________________________


				
				From: Gregg Vanderheiden
[mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu%5d>  
				Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:53 PM
				To: Andrew Kirkpatrick;
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
				Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6
				
				I don't understand this suggestion.
				 
				Gregg
				
				 -- ------------------------------ 
				Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
				Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
				Director - Trace R & D Center 
				University of Wisconsin-Madison 
				The Player for my DSS sound file is at
http://tinyurl.com/dho6b  <http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  

				
________________________________


				
				From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] <mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d>
On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
				Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:38 AM
				To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
				Subject: RE: REwrite of 1.1.6
				Gregg,

				Proposed
				 
				 
				1.1.6 For prerecorded multimedia
content, a combined document containing captions
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#captionsdef>
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#captionsdef>  intermixed
with the audio description
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#audiodescdef>
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/appendixA.html#audiodescdef>
transcripts is available. [How to meet 1.1.6
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overvi
ew.html#text-equiv-text-doc>
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overvi
ew.html#text-equiv-text-doc>  ]

				This sounds fine to me, but I think that
we should make sure that we accept the case where a transcript includes
links to audio descriptions interspersed, as an alternative to the
actual description text.    For example:
				
				Transcript:
				This is the first spoken transcript
text. This is more transcript.  (<a href="#desc1">description 1</a>).
This is more transcript.  Blah blah blah....
				
				Descriptions:
				<a name="desc1" id="desc1">1. </a>This
is the first description
				
				This would improve the experience for
many users,and while it is untested, I'd like to make sure that it is
acceptable to use.
				
				AWK

		 

		 
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 15:57:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:42 GMT