W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Agenda: HTML-A11Y Media Subteam on 25 August at 22:00Z

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:12:17 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinn+bpMbPsuWYB=wrAvBAEpKVdC8crQqkMtUMEY@mail.gmail.com>
To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Geoff,

Here is my thinking:

I have used "Described Video" as the over-arching term for any type of
time-aligned description whether that is audio or text. The extended
audio-description section is particularly focused only on the audio side of
"Described Video" only. Anything related to text is already covered in the
new "Texted Video-Description" section.

Introducing the term "Described Video" is actually really nice and helps us
use the word "description" for both audio and text. Then the text-only one
is "texted video-description" and the audio-only one is "audio-description",
which is the much more traditional use of that latter term. Otherwise it
would need to become "auditive video-description" and the extended section
would become "extended auditive video-description". I can do that if you
prefer, but I don't think it makes sense.

More comments inline.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:

> A few comments below; not too late, I hope.
> geoff/ncam
> ________________________________________
> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer [silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:00 PM
> To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
> Subject: Re: Agenda: HTML-A11Y Media Subteam on 25 August at 22:00Z
> Actually, I also had to apply the new terminology to the other Described
> Video sections:
> The "texted audio description" section is now called "texted video
> descrition":
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_User_Requirements#Texted_Video-Description
> And I use the term "audio-description" now exclusively only when it refers
> to actual audio tracks:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_User_Requirements#Extended_audio-description
> ======
> GF:
> While I think it's agreeable to re-label audio descriptions as video
> descriptions to conform the term with other usages (the US federal
> government comes to mind), I think it will be confusing to now use "audio
> descriptions" to label what are really extended *video* descriptions (and
> formerly called extended audio descriptions).  Re-labeling them "extended
> video descriptions" would be less confusing and would be a consistent usage
> of the term.
> Also, now that we're relabeling audio descriptions as video descriptions,
> it would seem appropriate to no longer label the requirements "AD-1, AD-2,"
> etc., but rather "VD-1, VD-2," etc.  (No comment on the smirks this may
> cause...).  Ditto for extended video descriptions (EVD).

Yeah, I had done that already.

Finally, a few editorial points that I noticed while scanning this section:
> -- "Video descriptions" should be hyphenated only when it's used as an
> adjective.  Therefore, it's "Video descriptions are one type of...", but
> it's "A video-description file is one type of...".

Ah ok - I wanted to be consistent. Could you please make those edits, since
I will certainly make the wrong call on some of the usage.

> -- "Description(s)" and "extended description(s)" aren't proper nouns and
> should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.

They were used there as terms as given in the title of the section. But feel
free to remove this, too.

> -- In the context of this document, "text video descriptions" doesn't need
> to be hyphenated.
> Finally, is "texted (video) descriptions" the final term settled on by the
> group?  "Texted" sounds as if the descriptions are being sent from a
> smartphone, which sounds weird, plus "texted" just makes for an awkward
> phrase.  "Text video descriptions" would be clearer, I think, and less
> awkward-- the descriptions are just text, after all.

We can use "text-based" or "textual" or just "text" - I don't mind. I find
they all sound awkward.

Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 03:13:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:42 UTC