Captions for audio clips

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