Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3

CMN:
>The question of context is in large part one of implementation priority - in
>order to make something accessible it does depend to a certain extent on what
>the context is, because in some contexts a full understanding or full
>equivalent is not really necessary, and in others it is important to get as
>close an equivalent as possible. (Think of the different uses of alt, title
>and longdesc for an image as one example of this).
>
>This is an area where accessibility requires considerable thought, skill, or
>experience to do well. (As is writing a music video in the first place.)
>Fortunately, the actual technical barriers are much lower. So in order to
>make these things accessible there is some work to be done. Should we do that
>work in all cases? Of course. Which part to do first? That's a case-by-case
>question.

WC:: Perhaps we need to use a relative priority along the lines of what we 
did for 8.1
<Q>
  Make programmatic elements  such as scripts and applets directly 
accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if 
functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.]
</Q>

Thus, an entry in the WCAG for Checkpoint 1.3 would read:
<Q>
1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a 
visual track,  provide an auditory description of the important information 
of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.   [Priority 1 if the 
visual track of the multimedia is important for understanding the 
surrounding content, otherwise Priority 2]
</Q>

That's probably not the smoothest wording, but I hope you get the drift.

thoughts?
--wendy

>Some detailed comments interspersed below - look for CMN or WC
>
>Charles
>
>
>On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>
>   Hello,
>
>   The debate that we had on the Evaluation and Repair Tools list (ER) was to
>   decide when auditory descriptions must be provided.
>
>   Ignoring the "until user agents" clause of checkpoint 1.3, it reads,
>   "provide an auditory description of the important information of the 
> visual
>   track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]."  This means that every
>   multimedia presentation needs an auditory description.  I am not sure that
>   is necessary nor feasible.  I'll illustrate this with a few examples.
>
>CMN not really. It means that every multimedia presentation with important
>information needs an audio equivalent, which is (admittedly only
>slightly) different).
>WC
>   1. Silent movies
>   Usually, there is video and the only audio is music of some sort 
> (usually a
>   piano).  A summary of what has been said is visually displayed every so
>   often.  Is a transcript (that includes descriptions of major visual 
> events)
>   enough or does a synchronized auditory description need to be provided?
>CMN
>Until user agents can read the transcript out loud, there needs to be an
>audio version in order to provide accessibility.
>WC
>   2. Music videos
>   Music videos are visual expressions of songs.  Usually, they show the
>   people who have made the music, sometimes they have a story line, there is
>   usually lots of lipsynching and dancing.  Do they need a synchronized
>   auditory description?  Oftentimes the video has nothing to do with the
>   music.  Is a transcript (that includes descriptions of major visual 
> events)
>   enough?  Is a transcript required?
>CMN
>It hinges on the definition of important. It may not be important to know
>more than that the band is playing for the clip of "Ob-la-Di". It may equally
>be important to explain the relevance of the imagery used in the clip of "I
>want to be Jim Morrison" (by the Widowed Isis, for the obsessively
>curious). But there is a question of how to describe it - that there are
>snakes and fire threaded through the clip, or to synchronise it so that
>Sinead's tear is mentioned at the critical point, not beofer or after since
>the emotional impact of that moment is supposed to be important.
>
>-Chaals
>WC
>   Does it depend on context?  If the movie is being studied for comic timing
>   or how to make silent films, then is the auditory description required? If
>   someone who is blind is watching the movie with someone who has sight, the
>   person who is blind would not know when to express emotion.   On the other
>   hand, if the silent film is a commercial or a decoration of some sort, is
>   the text transcript enough?
>
>   In the case of the music video, it seems to make sense to describe
>   something like Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video since it has such an
>   involved story line.  Although I would only synchronize descriptions to 
> the
>   sections of the video when there is no music but the dialog, action and
>   story line continue. However, I would only say this is priority 1 
> (must) if
>   the context that the video is presented in is to study the video for some
>   reason (music video 101).  If it's just for enjoyment (on mtv.com) I would
>   lower this to a priority 2 (should).
>
>   On the other hand, no matter what the context, I do not see the need to
>   provide a synchronized description to Sinead O'Connor's "Nothing Compares
>   to You" music video since it's just a close up of her face as she
>   sings.  If I were working for mtv.com and posting this video, I would
>   provide a static, text description of the nature of the video and what she
>   looks like, "A close-up of Sinead singing.  Her pale white face and bald
>   head contrast with the black background.  Midway through the song she 
> sheds
>   a tear and in general looks very anguished...."
>
>   The primary question is, what is the minimum requirement that must be met
>   to conform to checkpoint 1.3?  Must an auditory description be provided 
> for
>   every multimedia presentation?
>
>   Thoughts?  Are there other examples where the need for an auditory
>   description is questionable? where context may determine if it is required
>   or not?
>
>   I hope I have not offended anyone.  If you disagree with my reasoning, 
> I am
>   obviously open to discussion since I am posting this to the WCAG list with
>   a series of questions and no firm conclusions.  I understand that
>   independent of context, people want information.  I am trying to find a
>   reasonable balance between what authors need to provide and what users 
> need
>   to understand the content.  I believe that once we can rely on speech
>   synthesis to create a synchronized auditory description this will become
>   less of an issue.  But until then, there are concerns from authors about
>   cost and implementation.  If we need to push them we will.  However, I 
> want
>   to be sure of the necessary requirements.
>
>   Thanks,
>   --wendy
>
>   At 09:49 PM 8/2/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>   >An Audio equivalent to video is necessary in the same situations that 
> a text
>   >equivalent is necessary (ignoring the question of whether it is OK to 
> rely on
>   >synthesising speech from the text equivalent), In My Humble Opinion.
>   >
>   >I don't know of anyone doing a lot of audio description (but then I 
> can point
>   >to a lot of other access barriers that people haven't removed yet too).
>   >
>   >just my personal thoughts on the topic
>   >
>   >Charles McCN
>   >
>   >On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>   >
>   >   Ignoring the "until user agents" clause for a minute, when is an audio
>   >   description necessary?
>   >
>   >   Does anyone know of a site that provides audio descriptions for their
>   >   multimedia?
>   >
>   >   Wondering,
>   >   Chris
>   >
>   >
>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
>   >   To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
>   >   Cc: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "Al Gilman"
>   > <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
>   >   Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 1:05 AM
>   >   Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3
>   >
>   >
>   >   > I guess the real question is whether the until user agents 
> condition in
>   >   WCAG
>   >   > checkpoint 1.3 has been met...
>   >   >
>   >   > Thoughts?
>   >   >
>   >   > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>   >   >
>   >   >   OK. The requirement for an audio description is not dependant 
> on the
>   >   >   presence of a text description.
>   >   >
>   >   >   > An audio description is required when what you miss by not 
> seeing the
>   >   >   video
>   >   >   > is [something in the range of (significant, important, 
> critical)].
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   An audio description is much more difficult to create than a text
>   >   >   description and the file size is much larger. So we need to be 
> clear
>   >   about
>   >   >   when it's required before telling the author to do all this work.
>   >   >
>   >   >   Do all important/significant/critical videos require an audio
>   >   description?
>   >   >
>   >   >   Is an audio description necessary if there is a good text 
> description?
>   >   >
>   >   >   Chris
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   >   From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
>   >   >   To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "WAI WCAG List"
>   >   >   <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>   >   >   Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 2:07 PM
>   >   >   Subject: Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >   > At 11:06 AM 2000-07-28 -0400, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>   >   >   > >I'm looking for some clarification on technique 1.3:
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   > >"1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text
>   >   equivalent
>   >   >   of a
>   >   >   > >visual track, provide an auditory description of the important
>   >   >   information
>   >   >   > >of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]"
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   > >Does this mean that an audio description is required only if
>   > there is
>   >   a
>   >   >   text
>   >   >   > >equivalent of a visual track? Or, when is an audio description
>   >   required?
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > The description is required when it is required, not just 
> when it is
>   >   >   provided.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > An audio description is required when what you miss by not 
> seeing the
>   >   >   video
>   >   >   > is [something in the range of (significant, important, 
> critical)].
>   >   Once
>   >   >   > User Agents 'all' do synchronized audible playback of a text
>   >   description
>   >   >   > track as a native function, a synchronized text equivalent 
> will meet
>   >   the
>   >   >   > requirement for a description.  Until then, provide audio.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > The requirement for a description is determined by the 
> complexity and
>   >   >   > importance of the video, not by what the author has done 
> about the
>   >   >   > requirement.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > The "until user agents" clause only affect whether this 
> description
>   >   must
>   >   >   be
>   >   >   > in audio or may be only in text.  It has nothing to do with the
>   >   criteria
>   >   >   > for when a description is required.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Is that the way others recall, too?
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Al
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   > >Thanks,
>   >   >   > >Chris
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > --
>   >   > Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 
> 409 134
>   >   136
>   >   > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
>   >   http://www.w3.org/WAI
>   >   > Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>   >   > Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
>   >   >
>   >
>   >
>   >--
>   >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 
> 134 136
>   >W3C Web Accessibility 
> Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>   >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>   >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
>
>   --
>   wendy a chisholm
>   world wide web consortium
>   web accessibility initiative
>   madison, wi usa
>   tel: +1 608 663 6346
>   /--
>
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Friday, 4 August 2000 16:38:40 UTC