W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Revised Checkpoints: WCAG(1.4/1.3) and UAAG(2.5)

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 06:23:38 -0500
Message-ID: <001601bf3fdc$582c0c60$64520518@alex1.va.home.com>
To: <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
Cc: <ehansen@ets.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>
I DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT, "I don't think the Priority levels are too
influenced by how easy they are to accomplishas priorities."  As priorities
are to be a requirement and enforceable, we want to ensure there is buy-in
from the user community and ensure this can be implemented.  Or else many
people will say this is an undue burden - despite the previous discussions
on who can claim this and who cannot.

The proposal that I suggest is something that needs to be defined and easily
implementable.  The toolsets and manpower are just not there yet and is
something that can be tightened later.  If you do not have user buy-in or
raise the standard too high then you have set yourself up for failure.
Transcripts is something every staff can do - you just listen and write the
text.  Whereas real media files are gaining aceptance there are other
methods such as Windows Media Player, quick time, audio formats and other
files, and not everyone will have the expertise to make captions and
descriptions.  Lets get the buy-in and acceptance first, rather that
alienate the developer community and management.

Therefore, I stand by previous statement and believe this to be reasonable
and implementable:
Priority 1  Transcripts and these can have descriptions (for mulimedia and
audio files)
Priority 2  Captions
Priority 3  Caption with Descriptions

/rob
Received on Monday, 6 December 1999 06:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:25 UTC