- From: Martin Stehle <pewtah@snafu.de>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 16:30:29 +0100
- 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