- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:56:30 -0700
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Laura Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. This seems to be contrary to what Matt said: > 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. though he then followed it by saying: > 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. I'm not sure if the latter was intended to be taken as "you can do this if you want", or "in order to follow WCAG you must". It surprises me a great deal if accessibility guidelines say that publishing additional non-accessible content in addition to already accessible content is a bad thing. Granted, I am far from an accessibility expert so it's very possible that there is some aspect of this that I haven't considered. It would however be the first time I have heard such an argument made from an accessibility expert. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 21:57:33 UTC