- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 00:12:35 -0500
- To: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
- CC: ehansen@ets.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I don't think the Priority levels are too influenced by how easy they are to accomplish. It just happens that accessibility really is not all that hard. There are plenty of videos that are useless without audio description. For videos of that kind, the audio description is a Level 1 priority. Audio descriptions in many instances would be unnecessary, so those are Priority 3. I don't thing we can write the guidelines to define when audio descriptions are necessary, let alone define what constitutes "good" audio description. The current tools and technology (Real / SMIL anyway) makes converting a transcript into synchronized captions trivially easy, so I don't see the advantage to saying that a transcript meets A while captions are only neccessary for AA. Robert Neff wrote: > See my comments below > > WCAG 1.0 (5 May 1999) checkpoint 1.4: > "1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or > animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory > descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation. [Priority 1]" > ROB> I would be inclined to make a text transcript Priority 1 and captions > Priority 2 and Description Priority 3. Because Text transcripts would be > easiest to implement and captions have a higher learning curve with > additional cost.
Received on Monday, 6 December 1999 00:14:15 UTC