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

RE: (techs) Test 145

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:27:13 -0800
Message-ID: <53744A0A1D995C459E975F971E17F5640176DD14@namail4.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Katie Haritos-Shea" <ryladog@earthlink.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>

> Test 145 is in need of a passing example that incorporates a 
> transcript or audio file:
> 
> I suggest one that has both:
> 
> 145-7.html  Will pass the test. (Link to multimedia file 
> (.mwv) with a text trancript and and audio file (mp3).) 
> 
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 
> Transitional//EN""http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
> <html lang="en">
> <head>
> <title>OAC Testfile - Check #145 - Positive</title> </head> 
> <body> <p>View <a href="movie.wmv"> the movie </a>. Read the 
> <a href="movie.txt">Transcript of the Movie</a> or get the <a 
> href="movie.mp3">Audio Description of the Movie</a>.
> </p>
> </body>
> </html>

Does this count?  There is a transcript, but I don't think that WCAG
should be advocating for non-asociated audio descriptions.

The problem is that you can't really tell without viewing the video or
(in the case of SMIL) parsing a meta file.  Comments on the existing
techniques:

145-1.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file (.wav) without a
text equivalent.) 

<p>View <a href="movie.wmv">the movie</a>.</p>

In 145-1 the text says ".wav" but the movie is a .wmv.  I assume that
the .wmv is correct.  If so, I would say that this requires verification
since there could be open captions or open audio descriptions (in wmv
that the only kind of audio descriptions there is).  This is not an
example of a "fail", just a "can't pass".

145-3.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file (.mpg) without a
text equivalent.) 

Ditto for this one - not "fail", just "can't pass".

145-4.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file (.mov) without a
text equivalent.) 

.mov can carry text and audio description information in the .mov file.
This example is also not an outright failure.

145-5.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file (.ram) without a
text equivalent.) 

Ram files are often used - they are just simple metadata files for
realplayer that point to other files for the player to load.  They are
useful when playing a smil file since it ensures that the smil will be
loaded by the realplayer, as the open command is delivered via the .ram
directly to the real player.  So, the .ram can point to a .smil which
may have captions/descriptions (or it could point to an open
captioned/described file).  As a result, this is not a good example of a
failure.

145-6.html Will fail the test. (Link to multimedia file (.aif) without a
text equivalent.) 

Sure, this fails.

I assume that the list of "multimedia" file extensions is not final -
"Multimedia file extensions are .wmv, .mpg, .mov, .ram, and .aif.".  I'd
add asf, swf, avi, rm, dv, flv, divx, 3gp, mp4, and others.  I'd
probably remove .ram since it is just a metafile (if not then you should
add wmx and asx since they are equivalent for windows media).  

AWK
Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 04:27:43 GMT

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