- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:37:34 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, WAI WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, geoff_freed@wgbh.org
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