- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
- To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
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