- From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:44:32 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
JW: >It appears to be broadly agreed within the group that a requirement to >synchronize text transcripts with audio presentations should be >established, at least at a priority 2 level. PJ: Where is the broad agreement? Bruce, Jason, and Charles seem to agree with P2. I'm arguing for P3, and Robert and Eric seem OK with either P2 or P3, and I haven't heard form others. I do agree that there seems agreement that we need to make the distinction between multimedia videos and unimedia sounds files in the errata so that WCAG 1.4 doesn't apply to the unimedia sound only files. Bruce and Charles have made some good points, that it "could" be useful: BB: >With the very reasonable points made about residual hearing, English as a >foreign language, learning disabilities, etc.... and Charles claimed it is valuable: CMN: >having the sound and the captions/score available >and synchronisd is more valuable than one or the other PJ: but I've heard no supporting rationale or any convincing evidence that suggests that the "value" is more than useful and improves accessibility [P3]. Because the deaf, [learning disabled, or those learning a foreign language] are so comfortable now with synchronized television (and movie) captioning, does not support the argument that they will be comfortable or have significant barriers removed with synchronized captioned audio only files. Can anyone even show me an sample example, or better yet, a real example on the Web or anywhere? If we don't add a supporting technique, a checkpoint requiring [even at P3] synchronized captions for audio only files shouldn't even be added to the guidelines. I've seen natural language courses use techniques of synchronization to TEACH the language, but we're talking about guideline 1 - equivalent alternative information - not "teaching natural languages" or "teaching singing". We have been talking about ideas and theories, how can we suppose that it fits the definition of "significant barriers". P3 is still "valuable" and "useful" and "improves accessibility". Regards, Phill Jenkins
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 1999 11:52:27 UTC