RE: (techs) Test 145

There are no 'non-associated' audio descriptions that I know of.

They are synchronized with the video.  

We do have a total text version of AV as an option but the video
descriptions are text, not audio, and are much more extensive. 


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:27 PM
> To: Katie Haritos-Shea; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Cc: chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca
> Subject: RE: (techs) Test 145
> 
> 
> > 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 15:53:24 UTC