- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:19:16 +1000
- To: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Cc: "annevk@opera.com" <annevk@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Matt May<mattmay@adobe.com> wrote: > 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. If the W3C is able to provide real-time captioners for meetings, why aren't they being used to do the weekly transcripts for public-html meetings? Obviously there are always going to be a sufficient number of HOH people that would like to participate in the public-html meetings, but cannot, and who would appreciate such a transcript. Would it be possible to use this service to create better transcripts? And if possible even further: would it be possible to use the captioners to create actual caption files for the audio recordings that can be done via skype? Could that be the simple and sufficient solution without having to ask people for a weekly $80 contribution? Regards, Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 09:20:15 UTC