Re: Captions for audio clips

from an implementation standpoint, what does everyone think about having
text transcripts as P2 for a video clip and synchronized captions P3?


----- Original Message -----
From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: Captions for audio clips


>
>
>
> 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 Monday, 20 December 1999 22:47:39 UTC