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

I thought that your edits were great. Thanks for chipping in to get the
document into shape on time for the introduction to the wider W3C HTML WG!
Cheers,
Silvia.


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:

>
> <snip>
>
> I made the editorial changes, below, to the Wiki.  One thing I did not
> change is “extended audio description,” since we’re still discussing the
> term (see previous note).  Thus we’ve still got “video description” and
> “audio description” in the doc.
>
> Also, I think the entire doc could use a once-over for editorial
> consistency re capitalization, punctuation, etc.  I can do this by mid-day
> Friday (Boston time) if that’s not too late.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
>
>