- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:39:38 -0500 (EST)
- To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
- cc: w3C-wai-gl@w3.org
That's exactly what I am suggesting. I think the priority should be hgher than P3 - note my second point below. There are a couple of points to think about: 1. This is in a case where the music is part of hte content, and not just additional decoration. 2. We seem to have a current assumption that web browsing is a solitary exercise, and this assumption is informing our priortisation in some cases. I think that may be a false assumption, particularly in the area of cognitive disabilities, but in other common use cases as well, such as trying to work in a team, or a working group. Charles McCN On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote: CMN >... However for people >who have marinal hearing, having the sound and the captions/score available >and synchronisd is ... Charles, are you suggesting that for the "equivalent alternative" of a musical song, that I have all three, the music, and the synchronized text AND the synchronized musical score? [i.e., the "bouncing ball" video production?] I could agree that all three would be useful, perhaps improve accessibility, and certainly improve teaching techniques - still 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 Thursday, 16 December 1999 12:39:41 UTC