- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:19:59 +1100 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
The scenario under consideration when this checkpoint was drafted was that the textual equivalent, comprising a description of the visual track, would be written as a document in a markup language such as HTML or XML. Smil would then be used to synchronise a synthetic speech rendering of this text with the playing of the visual track. Obviously, the checkpoint is expressed in general terms that are not limited to Smil, though it was certainly the format which members of the Web Content Guidelines working group had in mind in proposing to qualify the checkpoint. It should be noted that the guidelines require textual equivalents of visual information to be provided in any case, and if an automatically generated spoken rendering can be synchronised with the visual track, this relieves the author from having to provide both (1) a textual equivalent of the visual track, and (2) and auditory description of the same content.
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 17:20:40 UTC