- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 19:39:05 +1000
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force (public-html-a11y@w3.org)" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 1:25 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > On May 19, 2011, at 17:49 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:11 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> On May 14, 2011, at 19:06 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> If we want to have it additionally as a separate track type (@kind), I >>>> would almost suggest to just call it "speech", because that's what it >>>> is according to the DVB spec: the speech-only provided as separate >>>> data with a possibility to increase its gain independently from the >>>> other channels. >>> >>> >>> Actually, since the media type of the track already tells us it is audio, I'd prefer just "clean"... >> >> What does "clean" mean to a Web developer or a user? > > Well, I would hope that these labels are, when possible, interpreted by the UA or matched to preferences, so they are not usually consider "user" labels. If they are, then we have an internationalization issue. For the web developer, they ought to mean what the documentation says they mean :-). > >> I still think >> "speech" is more appropriate and easier to show in a UI. Unless there >> are good arguments for "clean". > > > I don't think we should (a) stray from normal industry parlance or (b) assume that it's always the speech that is the main program content. I agree. Since we are talking about a technology that diverges from what the industry labels as "clean audio", we should therefore not use the same term. Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2011 09:39:52 UTC