RE: Audio Access

From a business perspective . . . 

Data warehouse, financial and retail web-based "port-of-entry" solutions
providors, i.e. NCR, see competitive advantage in adding telephone
ports-of-entry into these systems.

It might be helpful for our working group to compile a list of business
cases, such as "telephone ports-of-entry", for developing accessible web
pages.  A good business case can motivate businesses to do things far
above and beyond those actions motivated by conventional legal, moral
and ethical reasoning.

I would like to compile a list of business reasons for developing
accessible web pages for us by our WAI working group.  Can you help?

Our bucket is empty.  Please send water.  Thanks!


Steve Jacobs 
steve.jacobs@daytonoh.ncr.com


>----------
>From: 	Geoff Freed[SMTP:Geoff_Freed@wgbh.org]
>Sent: 	Monday, August 25, 1997 4:25 PM
>To: 	Al Gilman; WAI Working Group
>Subject: 	Re: Audio Access
>
>        Reply to:   RE>>Audio Access
>
>Al's correct.  I should have qualified the "automatically."  However, is it
>necessary for there to be a spoken description of a sound effect caption?
>I'll illustrate with yet another parallel to broadcast captioning and audio
>description:  if a program contains both closed captions and audio
>descriptions, (as some do on PBS and home video), the description track does
>not reflect the fact that captions are being displayed on the television
>screen.  In other words, the captions are not read as part of the
>descriptions.  Conversely, the audio descriptions are not reflected in the
>closed captions.
>
>Now, apply this to the Web.  If I were a deaf Web user, sound effects would
>be described to me visually, using a caption (or something like it).  And if
>I were a blind user, I wouldn't need a sound effect described aurally to me
>because I could already hear it.  Thus, you'd only need a sound effect
>*caption*, not a description.  That would eliminate the problem Al describes
>below.  Yes?
>
>geoff
>
>--------------------------------------
>Date: 8/25/97 2:06 PM
>To: Geoff Freed
>From: Al Gilman
>to follow up on what Geoff Freed said:
>
>>
>> [Decorative sounds should always carry a description-- on
>> television, closed captions display *sound effect* captions to
>> alert the viewer to important non-verbal information.  The same
>> should be true on the Web.  Again, this information should be
>> automatically displayed.
>
>I believe that the "automatically" should be one of the things
>that the viewer/browser lets the user control.
>
>For those using synthetic speech to access text, there are
>potential problems when the sound effect, and/or the spoken text
>of a description of the sound effect, collides (in the audio
>delivered to the user) with the presentation of spoken text
>extracted from the page.
>
>At the meeting in Boston I was left with the following idea:
>
>We need to make sure that the media that are used to carry
>streaming content are infiltrated with enough control hooks so
>that the user can, if need be, peruse the content piecewise.  As
>part of this, the user needs the capability to unbundle the
>nominally "synchronized multi-" media as required to resolve
>conflicts over user sensory capabilities.
>
>Today the Web Author composes what she thinks is a threaded heap
>of magazine pages or cereal boxes, but the user needs the
>capability to navigate it as asynchronous radio.
>
>Tomorrow the author creates a movie but the user needs the
>capability to access it as a talking book.
>
>I have not read the SAMI spec yet.  I suspect that it provides
>the most-needed basic capabilities: timing tracks for the audio
>and video and some method of cross-linking between tracks via a
>sync track.
>
>Possible areas for accessibility improvement in that case are to
>look at whether there is enough markup in the sync track to
>reconstruct a full script _if you need it_.
>
>For adapted access, the multimedia data bundle should encode the
>script structure in player-comprensible language; not the script
>text in flat text.
>
>--
>Al Gilman
>
>
>------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
>Received: by wgbh.org with ADMIN;25 Aug 1997 13:15:19 -0400
>Received: by www19.w3.org (8.8.5/8.6.12) id NAA11051; Mon, 25 Aug 1997
>13:12:55 -0400 (EDT)
>Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:12:55 -0400 (EDT)
>Resent-Message-Id: <199708251712.NAA11051@www19.w3.org>
>From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
>Message-Id: <199708251712.NAA24703@access2.digex.net>
>To: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org (WAI Working Group)
>Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:12:43 -0400 (EDT)
>In-Reply-To: <n1340565829.96137@wgbh.org> from Geoff Freed at "Aug 14, 97
>11:03:18 am"
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Subject: Re: Audio Access
>Resent-From: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/358
>X-Loop: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org
>Sender: w3c-wai-wg-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-wg-request@w3.org
>Precedence: list
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 26 August 1997 10:38:47 UTC