Re: Recording teleconferences?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Matt May<> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2009, at 2:56 PM, "Jonas Sicking" <> wrote:
>>> 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:
> No, not at all.
>>> 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".
> I order to follow WCAG, you must. Transcripts are the minimum
> requirement.
>> 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.
> They do not. That was my point. It appeared that WCAG was being set up
> as the reason recordings won't happen, and I want to stress that the
> two-choice dilemma is not publish a transcript or don't publish audio.
> It is publish a transcript, or fail to meet the basic WCAG
> requirement. Should you decide not to, you will be violating W3C
> process, but, let's be honest, few of the participants here worship at
> the altar of the W3C Process Document. In other words, feel free to go
> the inaccessible route, but expect to be called on it.

Ok, so the assumption is that publishing the transcript is in fact an
option? I was under the impression that that was not the case.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm officially confused, and would
love to see one of two things:

1. If transcribing is an option, that transcripts and recordings are published
2. If transcribing is *not* an option, that recordings are published

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 23:09:20 UTC