RE: Recording teleconferences?

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 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, I am having a hard time understanding your confusion. There is no
technical restriction that prevents the posting of an audio file without a
transcript; however without the transcript the posting will not meet the
WCAG requirement. Does the HTML WG care about this?

Dan C. posted earlier that by W3C policy transcripts must be included with
audio and video content. Does this affect the decision process?

In both cases the decisions are policy driven and not technology driven.
Creating accurate transcripts today is still relatively low tech: a
transcriptionist, a stenography machine, a set of head-phones and the
audio track. I have offered to pay for at least one tele-con transcription
from my own pocket, and Matt has suggested that WAI has resources that
might also assist in this area. The one thing that I don't want however is
for this to be seen as "the accessibility extremists" frustrating
progress. The WG should do what it thinks is right.

Assuming however that publishing an audio file as part of official W3C
business without a transcript is actually a viable option, completely
ignores the social component of the larger discussion - a continued
sticking point *especially* in this working group.  This is another
classic case of understanding (or failing to understand) that
accommodation is part of ensuring full access - and that technology alone
cannot solve all access problems. 


Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 04:49:27 UTC