RE: CLARIFICATION

Just my two bits on the idea that supplemental multimedia need not be captioned.  I respectfully disagree with such an position.

> A video clip may show you how to find your social security number, 
> what it might be written on etc.

Indeed, both of the two major commercial tax preparation software packages in the U.S. include just such a feature.  It is popular with a wide audience.

> this clip is for extra information for people with non localized LD.

The clip may be helpful for a wide range of folks, including some folks who may be Deaf or blind, and including some people with non-localized LD who also have a sensory impairment.

> It can be really easy to make using a simple web cam.

I disagree with this characterization.  It is really easy to make poor quality web-ready multimedia using a simple web cam.

> A large website could have a library of small clips 
> that take you through important tasks or information.

If there is sufficient resources to make useful clips with high production values, there is almost certainly resources available to add captions.

> These clips make the tasks and information accessible.

Exactly.

> Making them require synchronized captions mean 
> that they are suddenly burdensome to make.

I disagree with this characterization.  MAGpie, for example, is free and relatively easy to use.  Granted, captioning is more difficult than operating a Web Cam, but it is less difficult than shooting *informative* video.

> Hence people will make less of them, hence accessibility will be defeated.

Worse case scenario:  Given a fixed amount of time and money, they only can provide half as many videos.  I am comfortable with that calculus.  Which is better:   A hindered hundred videos with no captions?  Or fifty videos with audio description and captions available?  I would pick the later choice any day of the week.

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 12:44:20 UTC