RE: Captions for audio clips

Phill, if you are just reading it then that is the case. However for people
who have marinal hearing, having the sound and the captions/score available
and synchronisd is more valuable than one or the other (similarly for people
who can hear, but have difficulty reading). One of the challenges we face is
that there are people who are looking for mulit-modal support - there are
more paople with poor hearing than there are with no hearing (and similarly
for other disabilities).

Charles McCN

On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:

  
  
  Bruce, I agree with you for a video that has also has the audio track, but
  do you have the same opinion for just an audio only file?  In other words,
  say there is an audio file of a musical song, isn't reading the musical
  score, with the words, more accessible than a empty (remember there is no
  video in this example) view with some caption text popping up now and then?
  
  
  Regards,
  Phill Jenkins,
  
  
  Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net> on 12/10/99 05:01:14 PM
  
  Please respond to "webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net"
        <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
  
  
  I respectfully disagree.  Reading synchronized captions is MUCH easier and
  MUCH more functional than referring to a separate transcript.  So much so
  that P2 might even be too LOW.  Think of this from the perspective of a
  person who is deaf and who is quite comfortable with (closed) captions on
  television.
  
  I also have to say again that if (1) one's video is already in "Real Player
  G2" format (very popular), and (2) you already have a text transcript, then
  (3) creating synchronized captions (via SMIL) is VERY easy.
  
  If anyone cares to provide an example (1) and a corresponding (2), I would
  be pleased to volunteer creating (3).
  
  -- Bruce Bailey
  
  
  On Friday, December 10, 1999 4:05 PM, pjenkins@us.ibm.com
  [SMTP:pjenkins@us.ibm.com] wrote:
  > 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
  
  
  
  

--Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)

Received on Sunday, 12 December 1999 23:52:22 UTC