RE: WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission - clarification

I too am a little confused by the phrasing, especially since I understand the word “images” to mean “multimedia” -- but I this raises a bigger question in my mind:

Is formal Audio Description required if the content provider asserts that the default audio track is sufficient to convey all information?

(This comes up in our 508 testing requirements for multimedia  Most content we get for evaluation is of the “talking head” variety.  The need for a second audio track with the AD is rare.)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg 
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:45 AM
> To: koda@pk9.so-net.ne.jp
> Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Level 2 and 
> aimed at Level AA 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 Level 1 
> > 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 Level 1. 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. Level 1 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 Level 2 and 
> > aimed at Level AA as a following aim.
> > 
> > It will surely improve accessibility of image contents. I think.”

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 16:19:53 UTC