- From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:39:01 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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