W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Issue 271 (repositioning captions w.r.t. video)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 10:34:38 -0400
Message-Id: <200004301430.KAA1213752@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Cc: Cindy.King@gallaudet.edu
** Revisit original comment raising issue:

I am afraid that I misunderstood the original comment.  The original
comment does not raise any arguments about how fine or coarse the
adjustment needs to be.  The arguments in this comment are

1) undue burden (evidence: not done now)
2) insufficient necessity (opinion: information extraction is hard but not
impossible if this function is missing)

** Analysis

As far as the first argument is concerned, I believe that the Working Group
is addressing this and I don't want to comment right here.

As for the second argument, this appears to me to be a claim that
Checkpoint 2.6 requiring [the capability for] synchronized display of
caption and video is less than P1 in terms of the severity of impact when
it fails.  To accept this argument, the Group would have to go back and
relassify 2.6 for consistency.

** Draft disposition
[Working Group should review, but this may be what the group would consense
on:]

Reject the comment, on the reasoning:

Point 1, undue burden:

Some combination (as the Working Group wishes to include, exclude or
balance) of:
a) not that hard (SAMI e.g.)
b) not pertinent (P1 vs. P2 definitions don't consider implementability per
se.)

Point 2, not really necessary:
a) clarification: issue is ability to satisfy Checkpoint 2.6 when using a
screen magnifier (as per CMN comment in issues list).
b) keep at P1 because information in multimedia is commonly in the
relationship between visual and sound track content.  Reviewing video and
captions at different times is not regarded as access to the information in
this case.

Note:  The fineness of positioning in the user repositioning of the caption
display is not really an issue raised by the commenter.  It is not really a
factor in the implementability of the function, as most screen postioning
is done in pixel units today.  So this subthread does not need to be
carried forward into the disposition of the comment.  It was just an
over-reaction to one word in the comment which was in fact not the issue
the commenter was raising.

Al

-- background quotes

Summary of issue from the Issues List:

   Issue 271 (Proposed Recommendation): Checkpoint 4.7: Change to P2
          since arbitrary repositioning not a requirement.
          Name: Other comments (not formal AC Review)
          Source URL: [291]None
          Date: Sun Apr 9 12:30:49 2000
          Category of issue: User-control of Style
          Type of issue: Checkpoints
          Resolution summary: Not resolved
          Resolution URL: Not resolved
          First working draft: No reference
          Comments:
          " This seems like Pri 2 instead of Pri 1 to me, because it is
          not reasonable to require the user to be able to move captions
          to any arbitrary location. Most media players don't support
          moving the captions to arbitrary locations, and I see lack of
          this feature as making things difficult but not impossible. "

Checkpoint 2.6 summary from linear checklist:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/PR-UAAG10-20000310/uaag10-chklist.html>

     * [43]Checkpoint 2.6 Allow the user to specify that text
       transcripts, collated text transcripts, captions, and auditory
       descriptions be rendered at the same time as the associated
       auditory and visual tracks. Respect author-supplied
       synchronization cues during rendering. [44](Techniques for 2.6)
Received on Sunday, 30 April 2000 10:30:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:03 GMT