- From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:00:23 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- 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. I agree that captions incorrectly synchronized [poorly or mislabeled] with the video can lead to completely different interpretations - just as a transcript of our working groups minutes which are incorrectly labeled as to who is saying what can lead to completely different interpretations. I agree "IF" I provide captions with the video they should be synchronized correctly. But why priority 1 to *have to* provide a captioned video? - when a separate text transcript will do? For example, if we were to video record a W3C conference call where some members were present in one room, say at MIT, and others participating via the phone; and we provide the clip on the W3C web site, would it have to be closed captioned to meet the guidelines - or is it just as accessible to have the transcript of the video conference call? I can think of more elaborate video conference calls I been in where charts (HTML pages) where shown and mechanical models were displayed, but I could provide all the information in a text description file - and it be fully accessible - without the production of synchronizing captions and video descriptions with the original recorded video. Regards, Phill Jenkins
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 18:03:29 UTC