Re: Captions for audio clips

GF:
I'm afraid I have to disagree with some of this, too.

1.  I'm definitely not in favor of separating audio-only presentations from audio+video+text+etc presentations.  I think that splitting presentations into "unimedia" and "multimedia" is going to generate unnecessary confusion among authors who are already confused about accessibility.  "Multimedia" appears to be gaining acceptance as a term which encompasses the presentation of sound and pictures.  Do we REALLY need to invent a new word?  Although an audio-only presentation in its native state is not "multi"media, adding a text track to this single audio track qualifies it for "multi" status, no?  

2. Having said that... if you ARE providing access for an audio-only presentation, I prefer that synchronized text-- i.e., captions-- receive Priority 2.  A text transcript (not synchronized) should be Priority 1.  (Okay, okay...  I REALLY prefer that captions receive Priority 1 status here, but I have been persuaded that synchronized text is not exactly necessary with audio-only media.)

3.  You're right-- making a musical score available *could* be useful, but I'm not so sure  it's a high-priority access issue.  Writing scores imposes big obstacles on the author, not the least of which is musical literacy on the author's part.  What if the author didn't compose the music and doesn't know how to even read or write music?  Who's going to prepare and mark up the score?  And presentation of music visibly as opposed to aurally raises the specter of rights issues.  Rights may have been negotiated from a composer to make the music available aurally for a specific use, but not visibly.  This adds a layer of complexity that will guarantee a lack of accessibile multimedia.

Geoff Freed
WGBH/NCAM



On Wednesday, December 15, 1999, pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
>
>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 14:29:17 UTC