RE: ISSUE-194: full-transcript - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

Sean Hayes wrote
> I am not sure that these are necessarily the same thing at all. A
> transcript is IMO a static untimed merged representation of the
> information in in the caption and description tracks. A longdesc would
> probably be something more along the lines of a synopsis or précis. I
> think we need mechanisms that can handle both of these use cases.

I could not agree more. A transcript of a 90 minute video would be
approximately 90 minutes worth of reading, which is significantly more than
what a 'longer textual description' would call for under any circumstances.
It is not a description, it is a transcript.

In checking with a number of non-sighted colleagues, there seems to be some
consensus that this would be onerous on the end user, and
insufficient/incorrect for the role.

> I agree that it makes sense to wait and see how the discussion on
> generic 'off page text' pans out; it might be for example that we end
> up with both an attribute and an element e.g. @longdesc and <longdesc>
> (following the precedent of @src and <source>) where the latter admits
> a richer set of adornments, possibly including some sort of role
> attribute which can distinguish between a transcript and a synopsis,
> amongst other uses for off-page text.

This is the first I have heard of proposing a <longdesc> element (and as you
know, I follow *those* discussions quite closely).  It is an interesting if
unorthodox idea. Do you have further thoughts jotted down somewhere?  I
would encourage you to surface them on this list soon.



Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 13:43:29 UTC