W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

From: Martin Stehle <pewtah@snafu.de>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 16:30:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1421165687.20071104163029@snafu.de>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
CC: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Hello Loretta,

I am satisfied.

Martin Stehle

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1: WCAG 2.0 and sign language
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0056.html
> (Issue ID: 1982)
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------

>> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/927584643.20060523115257@snafu.de
>> (Issue ID: LC-591)

>> Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>> Reasons of why using sign language videos are wrong.

>> Proposed Change:

>> Replace it with: "The intent of this success criterion is to enable
>> people who are deaf or hard of hearing and who are fluent in the sign
>> language to understand whole texts. Many people, especially native
>> signers, find it easier to follow sign language than to read the text,
>> since the text are often a second language to them."

>> ----------------------------
>> Response from Working Group:
>> ----------------------------

>> The intent section for 1.2.5 has been revised to read:

>> The intent of this success criterion is to enable people who are deaf
>> or hard of hearing and who are fluent in a sign language to understand
>> the content of the audio track of multimedia presentations. Written
>> text, such as that found in captions, is often a second language. Some
>> individuals will require sign language interpretation to gain full
>> access to the multimedia content.

> The last sentence ist not wrong, but uncompleted. It is not only to
> gain full access to multimedia content, it is also to gain access to
> whole texts. The home page, the articles, news, the blog entries etc.,
> are texts. Many native signers do not misinterpretate sign language
> videos, but written text. Not only in captions, but whole texts in
> pages. This is a very important topic when it comes to web sites form
> authorities, like government agencies, municipal authorities etc.

> Till now the WCAG 2.0 draft let conclude: if there is multimedia
> content, then one has to offer sign language videos. If there is no
> multimedia content, one does not need to offer such videos. This is
> the conclusion I find misleading.

> So the emplyoment of sign language videos should not limited to to
> existence of multimedia content only, but to whole texts. So this
> should be a new "Guideline 1.5: "Provide content alternatives in sign
> language". This guideline could be extended with "and
> easy-to-understand language".

> In Germany there are many web sites from the federal government and
> lower authorities who included sign language videos to transform the
> texts. Even a financial institute, Deutsche Bank, uses such videos:
> http://www.bundesbank.de/aufgaben/aufgaben_dgs.php

> This topic applies accordingly to Comment 7.


>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 7:

>> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/927584643.20060523115257@snafu.de
>> (Issue ID: LC-595)

>> Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>> The thesis "People whose primary language is a sign language sometimes
>> have limited reading ability" is not always true. The reading ability
>> of native signers is broad, from low to top. The focus on captions is
>> not meeting the reality. Many native signers are able to understand
>> captions. The focus has to move to the complete content, i.e. the
>> texts.

>> Proposed Change:

>> Replace it with "These individuals may not be able to read and
>> comprehend the textual contents and thus require a sign language
>> interpretation to gain access to the multimedia content."

>> ----------------------------
>> Response from Working Group:
>> ----------------------------

>> We have adopted your recommendation  into the intent sections for SC
>> 1.2.5 with a slight revision to indicate that this isn't true for all.
>> It now reads as follows:

>> 'The intent of this success criterion is to enable people who are deaf
>> or hard of hearing and who are fluent in the sign language to
>> understand the content of the audio track of multimedia presentations.
>> Written text, such as that found in captions is often a second
>> language to them. Some of these individuals may not be able to read
>> and comprehend the textual content of captions or may not be able to
>> read it quickly enough and thus require a sign language interpretation
>> to gain access to the multimedia content.'

> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------

> The working group believes that because sign language provides the
> ability to provide intonation, emotion and other audio information
> that is reflected in sign language interpretation, but not in
> captions, sign language interpretation provides richer and more
> equivalent access to multimedia. People who communicate extensively in
> sign language are also faster in sign language and multimedia is a
> time-based presentation. Success Criterion 1.2.5 addresses the special
> problem introduced by multimedia.

> We recognize that many people who are Deaf will find sign language
> interpretation much easier to understand and interact with than text
> or captions. Guideline 3.1 includes an advisory technique to provide
> sign language interpretation for all content:

> Providing sign language interpretation for all content (future link)

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2: disagree with sentence in intent
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0056.html
> (Issue ID: 1983)
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------

>> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/927584643.20060523115257@snafu.de
>> (Issue ID: LC-597)

>> Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>> The note "Different sites may address...sufficient by the working
>> group" is a little bit misleading in case of deaf people.

>> Proposed Change:

>> Please add to the note that in case of deaf people it is wrong to
>> think about deaf people as human beings not able to understand "texts
>> above upper secondary education level". It is not about cognitive
>> impairments, it is about linguistic matters. It is just that many deaf
>> people understand sign language better than written language, because
>> sign language is their mother tongue. With sign language "texts above
>> upper secondary education level" are more understandable for deaf
>> people.

>> ----------------------------
>> Response from Working Group:
>> ----------------------------

>> Thanks you for your suggestion. We have replaced the sentence

>> "For sites designed for people who are deaf a sign language version of
>> the page may be most useful for users who cannot understand the text
>> well."

>> with the sentence

>> "For some people who are deaf, a sign language version of the page may
>> be easier to understand than a written language version since sign
>> language may be their first language."

>> ----------------------------------------------------------


> This is ok. But I disagree with the sentence before: "But if a site is
> intended for individuals who are deaf, providing an audio file would
> not be useful." Please delete it, because no-where in the WCAG 2.0
> documents there is phrase like "a site intended for individuals who
> are blind" or "a site intended for individuals who has motor
> impairments". A web site is intended for all users, and I think the
> WCAG documents should transport this idea.

> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------

> We have removed that sentence.


-- 
Martin Stehle
Schliemannstr. 45
10437 Berlin
mailto:pewtah@snafu.de
Barrierefreiheit im Web
http://www.webaccessibility.de/
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 18:22:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:09 UTC