- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 17:36:16 +0200
- To: Christian Vogler <christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>, Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Christian Vogler <christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu> wrote: > I also feel the need to reiterate: most of the stuff that is *legally* > required is covered by good use cases, and backed by requirements that > consumers *with disabilities* asked for, based on *their needs*. While there > are some things that cause issues, and that may be less well thought out, > the majority of what the FCC rules state are things that we need to do > because they impact usability and access, not because of legal language. > Consumers really would resent reading that "some features are required > legally" and for this reason they should be made integrated with WebVTT. Excellent, understanding the underlying use case is exactly what I need, so that I can be confident that the solution actually solves the use case, as opposed to simply complying with the letter of the law. I just sent out an email asking "What is the use case for two levels of background colors?" If you or anyone else could be of service in explaining these things, it would help me a lot. I'll probably have more similar questions. Philip
Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 15:36:43 UTC