- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:23:51 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Dan wrote: >>> Well, then there are the social/policy questions. I wrote: >> Also the question of providing alternatives >> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#media-equiv >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G158 Lachlan wrote: > We will still have the minutes as usual, but the advantage of having a > recording would be that they could be more easily revised later for > accuracy. I don't think it would be essential to have a word for word > transcript though, but somewhere between that and the poor quality minutes > we have today would be good. As an aid to the scribe, a recording could be helpful after the fact to repair minutes. But if a full recording is offered to the public it is only equitable to offer a full transcript for people who do not have the option to listen. If you're deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind you'll be locked out of full content. The guidance therefore, according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, is to provide a transcript. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 17:24:27 UTC