W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: Proposed substantive change to media accessibility (Issue 2490)

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:28:39 -0500
Message-ID: <23EB0B5A59FF804E9A219B2C4EF3AE3DE57B10@Access-Exch.Access-Board.gov>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Cc: "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Even though I am content with things as they are now, I concur with Sean
in that I am not wholly convinced that we are entirely consistent with
the Levels assignment between text equivalents and captioning.  I will
try and be more lucid here than I was on the call.
 
Specifically, 1.1.1 allows that text alternatives may merely provide
descriptive identification of the non-text content when that non-text
content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory experience.
 
Well, even nominally educational/informational films are creating a
visual experience, and the authors have chosen a visual medium for some
rather fundamental, perhaps even primary, reason.
 
So it seems rather uneven to allow that some sensory-oriented non-text
context needs only descriptive identification (and nothing further, even
at Double or Triple A) - but sensory-oriented synchronized media
requires captions or audio description or full text alternatives.
 
But I am not troubled enough by this flaw that I think it warrants
changing SC!
 
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 14:28:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:52 GMT