RE: WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission - clarification

Hi Tomoaki

Can you clarify your proposed change?

It is not clear what you are suggesting when you say:

I hope that audio description is prescribed from Level2 and aimed at LevelAA as a following aim.   


We are not sure what you mean by "prescribed from level 2"   and "aimed at level AA".  

- currently audio description is one way of meeting 1.2.2 (level 1)
- it is required on level 2 in 1.2.3   
- it is therefore not required for conformance at Level A (though a text description of multimedia would be if it were not provided)
- it is required for conformance at Level AA

Are you supporting this?  Or are you suggesting a change?  What change are you suggesting? 

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Gregg

Co-chair
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-comments-wcag20-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-comments-wcag20-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:15 AM
> To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission
> 
> 
> 
> Name: Tomoaki Kodaka
> Email: koda@pk9.so-net.ne.jp
> Affiliation: NTT CLARUTY CORPORATION
> Document: W2
> Item Number: media-equiv
> Part of Item: 
> Comment Type: general comment
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
> 　The degree of the spread of audio description is different 
> country to country.
> 
> I doubt that our situation in audio description is Level1 
> slightly, because the word “audio description” itself is 
> not penetrated in my country. In Japan some volunteer groups 
> add audio description to movies.
> 
> But it is not spread at the movie theater. It is desirable 
> that all Web image content has audio description. But we 
> don’t know what audio description is and how to produce 
> it-this is our present situation. So I feel fear that image 
> content is left out of the Web units intentionally, by we are 
> detected Level1.It is sure that people who lost the sense of 
> sight can’t get any information which is appeared by only 
> animations. Images lacking in text alternatives don’t have 
> information at all, while multimedia　lacking in audio 
> description has much information―lines, sounds and so on. 
> When we hear the sound of train, we can guess the place is a 
> station. We can understand people are angry or laughing by 
> their tone. 
> 
> It is fact that many blind men enjoy listening TV. Lacking in 
> audio description is not a situation in which there is no 
> information. But producing audio description takes time and 
> money. Level1 is an obstacle for us. So I feel fear that image 
> content is left out of the Scoping of conformance claims. 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed Change:
> I hope that audio description is prescribed from Level2 and 
> aimed at LevelAA as a following aim. 
> 
> It will surely improve accessibility of image contents. I think.　
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 15:45:44 UTC