Re: Interaction of checkpoints 1.1 and 1.3

Unsynchronised alternatives can lead to a completely different interpretation
of a video. A simple example is to provide captions which imply that speakers
are taking different positions in a debate to those they are in fact taking.

Charles McCathieNevile

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:

  
  
  I read past minutes and many post to the list, but I don't understand why
  important video information available as a text description or audio
  description is made more accessible by being synchronized with the video.
  
  >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.
  
  Whether I buy the book or buy the video, I can usually figure out how to do
  the complicated task that I bought the book or video for.  My ability to
  accomplish the task is usually dependent on my ability to comprehend and/or
  the authors ability to describe in written or video format. I don't know of
  an example where the synchronization would provide more accessibility.
  
  This is similar to internationalization issues of translating audio and
  video information.  Synchronizing the alternative content should be
  priority 3.
  
  Regards,
  Phill Jenkins
  
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 17:24:47 UTC