- From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:12:03 -0500
- To: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
phil, good points. just to clarify, could you state where you feel P1, P2, P3 should be for Audion/Video. but i also think you can add in here text transcripts in html format. Would we want to say this is P1 So for Audio - Video P1 is text transcripts P2 is "What goes here?" P3 is "Caption and Description" with visual syncrohnization For examples, pls see http://www1.usmint.gov/GoldenDollar/Sen_Dorgan.htm and http://www1.usmint.gov/GoldenDollar/broadcast.cfm regards, rob ----- Original Message ----- From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 4:05 PM Subject: Re: Captions for audio clips > > > I would argue that even priority 2 is too high. If the listener has some > residual hearing, then the visual synchronized captions are only aiding or > making it easier to get the information. The definition of Priority 3 is > : > "A Web content developer may address this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or > more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information in the > document. Satisfying this checkpoint will improve access to Web documents. > " > I do not feel that adding visual captions to audio clips is removing > "significant barriers" [see P2 definition]. I am also assuming that volume > control and play back controls on the user agent will provide the access to > the audio information that the user with residual hearing may need. > Remember, as the residual hearing approaches zero, the benefit of visual > synchronized captions approaches zero, but never gets there because > synchronized timed presentation of the text captions gives indication to > rhythm or timing of the text - but, which is something that can be > approached - with good punctuation, hence requiring only a P3. > > Regards, > Phill Jenkins > >
Received on Saturday, 11 December 1999 06:20:20 UTC