Re: Captions for audio clips

I think that defining priority on the basis of a implementation difficulty is
a serious mistake. We have a reasonable ability to understand user needs in a
regular way, and to get them roughly right. Deciding what is easily
implemented is clearly not within the bounds even of a group of developers,
since one lot will say "that can't be done" while another lot comes and says
"oh, we did that years ago".

At least this has been my experience in the Authoring Tools Group.

Charles McCN

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Robert Neff wrote:

  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
  >
  >
  >
  

--
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 Monday, 20 December 1999 22:58:04 UTC