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

RE: 1.1 level 3 SC

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:59:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4C63@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Or do we want to use the same 'screenplay' at L3 as at L1 ? 

I agree with John and Loretta that wording should be consistent between levels.

> Since we have a strong text equivalent option for multimedia at 1.2 L1 - do we really want a weak one at level 3 of 1.1?  

How about requiring *both* Audio Description and full corrected screenplay at level 3?

That is, for L1 the site has a choice of AD or screenplay.  For L3 claim, site must provide both.  This way, providing the full corrected screenplay does satisfy this particular SC at Triple A "for free".  If the site is going for Triple A, they still have to do some extra work.

Is there a need to further qualify that some kinds of video don't really benefit from Audio Description, and therefore AD is not required?  Is it legitimate for a site with nothing but talking head type videos (captioned of course) to claim they satisfy Level 1?  Or, since a talking head type video gains little from audio description, *must* a site provide full corrected screenplay to satisfy Level 1?
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 18:59:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:45 GMT