- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:51:08 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Hi Anne, I think Matt did a good job of answering your questions. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0749.html I'll try to explain further. If it doesn't make sense, just say "Laura this is as clear as mud" and we can try again. > So what we currently do is not in conflict with WCAG No it is not. We currently do not provide verbatim content of teleconferences (audio or text). What we provide are minutes of equal quality for all in HTML format. > but if we were to make the > recordings accessible to more people than they are currently we would be in conflict > with WCAG? In essence you would be making full audio content available (not accessible) to more people by placing it on the public web. But without a transcript, full content would not be accessible to the deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind. They would be locked out. So, yes, it would be in conflict with WCAG. (As for universal design even people who don't not a sound card or speakers would be out of luck) . These are the relevant parts of WCAG: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#media-equiv http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G158 Dan followed up on W3C policy: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0753.html Does that help? Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 20:51:44 UTC