- From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ets.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:44:35 -0500
- To: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Is it correct that captions are not required for audio clips? In other words, is it correct that synchronization is not required between audio clips and their text equivalents (i.e., text transcripts)? Audio clips must have text equivalents, to be sure (per checkpoint 1.1). Captions for audio clips would be helpful for people who have a hearing impairment but some residual hearing. They could, for example, listen a song and but see the words in synchronized fashion, thus being able to make better use of their residual hearing. The various guidelines seem to refer to captions almost exclusively in the context of multimedia presentations, but not for audio clips. Perhaps, there should be a checkpoint along the lines of the following: "1.4.A For any audio presentation, provide captions. [Priority 2 {or 3}]" From the standpoint of Web authoring, this would require the text transcript of the audio presentation to be synchronized with with the auditory presentation. Having this as a Priority 2 or 3 rather than as Priority 1 represents a change from an earlier memo (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999OctDec/0165.html), I argued for a higher priority (Priority 1). I also referred to synchronizing the text transcript (rather than "captions") and referred to audio clips, as opposed to the more generic "audio presentation": "New WCAG checkpoint 1.4.E (4 December 1999) (id: WC-ACLIP-SYNC-TT): "1.4.E Synchronize each audio clip with its text transcript. [Priority 1]" {I prefer the brevity of this version.} {or} "1.4.E For each audio clip, provide data that will allow user agents to synchronize the audio clip with the text transcript. [Priority 1]" "Note: This checkpoint becomes effective one year after the release of a W3C recommendation addressing the synchronization of audio clips with their text transcripts." Rationale: Synchronization between the audio clip and the text transcript is essential or near-essential for many individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing but who have some residual hearing because it will allow them to match what they _are_ able to hear with the text transcript. I could also argue for this being Priority 2 rather than Priority 1, though Priority 1 is probably fine and in keeping with existing (5 May) checkpoint. By the way, I use the term "audio clip" rather than "auditory track" because I reserve the latter for multimedia presentations. == In summary, I don't think that Priority 1 is warranted and I am not sure what I was thinking when I said that Priority 1 was in keeping with some 5 May checkpoint. As an aside, I assume now that it is fine to refer to "captions" for audio clips. I had previously reserved the word for multimedia presentations. If I am not correct in this regard, then I would appreciate being corrected. Also, I assume that the reference "multimedia presentations" refer to presentations the include movies and animations but not simply audio clips (or streaming audio). Again, if I am wrong on this I would appreciate learning the rationale. ==== For comparison, here is WCAG 1.0 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] "
Received on Friday, 10 December 1999 14:45:49 UTC