- From: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:08:57 -0700
- To: "annevk@opera.com" <annevk@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:36:36 +0200, Anne said: >> 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. > > So your opinion is that we should not provide any public recording whatsoever > if we cannot commit to also offer a transcript? In the past, when people who are deaf/HoH expressed a desire to participate in teleconferences, W3C has provided a real-time captioner. That is the means of accessibility accommodation for real-time telecons. (By the way, since at least one person has gotten this mixed up, phone conversations are _not web content_ by any stretch of the imagination, so what WCAG says doesn't matter. Meeting minutes, which are not transcripts, are required under W3C Process, and are not equivalent alternatives to the real-time conversation.) If you want to record the conversations (which I don't take a position on), and put those on the Web, the WCAG 2 requirement is that a transcript of the conversation be provided after the fact. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G158 Whether you meet WCAG or not, that's your option. But nowhere in there does it say, if you don't publish a transcript, then you _must not publish the audio_. You should not position WCAG (or accessibility advocates) as a force against publishing information relevant to the development of HTML5. If you choose to make audio recordings available, and you intend to make that content accessible, but you feel it is an undue burden on yourselves to do so, contact Judy Brewer and ask that W3C transcribe the recordings. - m
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 18:09:49 UTC