Re: Bugs in Checkpoint 1.3 (Auditory Description)

Eric's revision of the text of the checkpoint undoubtedly clarifies it.
However, as Gregg has argued, consistently and persuasively, until such
time as multimedia players (that is to say, user agents) can synchronize a
spoken rendering of the text equivalent with the audio track of a
multimedia presentation, there is no other means available of providing a
synchronized equivalent to the video. He therefore maintained that this
item must have a priority 1 rating, as failure to include a description
renders the content inaccessible. However, it could be maintained, to the
contrary, that even if checkpoint 1.3 were not followed, there would still
be a textual equivalent available (checkpoint 1.1) which, at present,
could not be synchronized with the multimedia presentation. The lack of
synchronization might make such a description somewhat superfluous
however; perhaps this would depend on the length and nature of the video.

My own preference would be to opt for a conservative solution by adopting
substance of Eric's wording in so far as it clarifies the checkpoint, and
retaining the priority 1 classification.

Gregg has also maintained, with equal persuasiveness, that auditory
descriptions will be used by individuals who are vision impaired, not just
those who are legally blind. I would therefore suggest broadening (or
omitting) the reference to blindness contained in Eric's proposed
revision.

Eric's clarification of the "until" clause, and his effort to distinguish
between auditory descriptions as audio streams supplied by the content
developer, and as spoken renderings of text equivalents as generated by
the user agent/multimedia player, are reasonable amendments.

Received on Monday, 19 April 1999 20:33:03 UTC