W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Revised Checkpoints: WCAG(1.4/1.3) and UAAG(2.5)

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 00:12:35 -0500
Message-ID: <384B45C3.6D1989B9@clark.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:16 UTC